Re: [Anima] which base64 for RFC8366... original!

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 23 October 2019 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763801200D8 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YyTMsV8k2kks for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 870601208BE for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764FD3897A; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:23:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C52076D; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:26:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <15459.1571755692@localhost> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:26:18 -0400
Message-ID: <3016.1571833578@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] which base64 for RFC8366... original!
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:26:25 -0000

Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
    >> So, why doesn't RFC8366 reference:

    > No idea.

    > But then, RFC 8366 says

    > The voucher artifact is a JSON [RFC8259] document that conforms with
    > a data model described by YANG [RFC7950], is encoded using the rules
    > defined in [RFC8259], and is signed using (by default) a CMS
    > structure [RFC5652].

    > which is pretty much devoid of meaning.

Well, it does tell you that the YANG to be serialized.
It whould have reference 7951 though.

    >> I wonder if this is worth an errata clarifying this for RFC8366?

    > Yes, but maybe the WG should decide first what was intended…

I'm an author.... we intended for binary stuff to get base64-encoded, but I
don't think any of us quite understood enough about the different flavours.
I would have preferred that RFC7951 had maybe said that it shall be
base64URL, but that base64 shall be tolerated.
It's irksome because JWS specifies base64URL, and the JSON spec is silent.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-