There seems to be two (or more) common base 64 encoding alphabets. Could we enumerate the alphabets used in at least standards track RFCs and give each one a more specific name so that specification could specify which one the forms was used. This might help implementers understand there were multiple forms and libraries might provide a flag to choose the correct one. Has the filename safe version of base64 been used anywhere - if so can we provide a better reference and a post to a mailing list? If not can we remove it? I was wondering if this form of Base32 was actually used anywhere. If not, could we just remove it. Did the base32 extended hex version get used in the SASL work? Can we update the reference or if it is not needed not just remove it. Having LGPL code in the draft will no doubt cause concerns for some people - given the simplicity in understanding this algorithm and wide availability of working code, does having this code here really improve the specification? Cullen On 4/3/06 6:29 AM, "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the > following document: > > - 'The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings ' > <draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2006-05-01. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis-02.txt > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf