Re: [http-auth] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-03.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-12-05 18:25, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 12/5/14, 10:21 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Julian
>>>
>>> This begins a 2-week WGLC for this document.
>>>
>>> Please take the time to read through and post any comments to the list.
>>
>> My apologies if this has already been covered, but the abstract includes
>> the phrase "obfuscated by the use of Base64 encoding" (the introduction
>> includes similar content).  It looks like this was introduced in the -01,
>> and the on-list discussion of the -00 didn't really talk about it --
>> there
>> was a note from Bjoern that the abstract "could use another sentence
>> stating what the `Basic` scheme is", but the word "obfuscate" did not
>> appear.  As such, I thought I would mention it now -- it's not really
>> clear that Base64 encoding counts as obfuscation in this context, where
>> the HTTP headers make it very clear that the userid/password are being
>> conveyed.
>
> That struck me as odd, too. I'd suggest "encoded in Base 64" instead.
>
> Peter

What do others think?

Would saying "slightly obfuscated" make things more bearable?

(If we change it in the abstract we'll need to change the 2nd occurence 
as well, no)

Best regards, Julian