> > 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. base32 extended hex is being / will be used for NSEC3 as it preserves the sort order. > 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 > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf