That adds significantly to the size of the identifiers. For my application the amount of space that is available to transport the identifiers will be constrained. Thus if X bytes permits 100 sites to be secured using a base64 encoding, use of base16 will drop that to 60 or so.
There is already an IETF specification and precedent that covers this issue. On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email protected]> wrote: > * Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>I suggest that we use Base 64 Encoding with URL and Filename Safe Alphabet: > > How about Base 16 instead? Like we use it for checksums everywhere else? > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · 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/ > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
