Re: [jose] Use of Base64 encoding

My recollection of the reasons for URL safe base64 encoding 3 years ago was to minimize implementation and deployment errors when objects are including as parameters in URLs. Several implementors of other encodings had nightmare debug sessions that were caused by URL encoding / decoding issues.

Is there any reason to NOT use URL safe base64 encoding? 

On Sep 4, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

> Having multiple ways to do something never helps improve interop
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:38 PM
> To: jose@ietf.org
> Subject: [jose] Use of Base64 encoding
> 
> <personal>
> 
> I was struck by the questions of which base64 encoder should be used in the different documents that the working group employed and I started going through the different locations in the document to see where and how much it mattered if the base64 or base64URL encoder was used.  This message represents my conclusions and leads to some questions
> 
> 1.  The simple dot encoding of the objects does require it as it will possibly be sent as part of a URL 2.  If you are going to be in a space constrained environment then you MIGHT want it as it will shrink the result, however doing a solution that deals with binary data more generally would be a better solution.
> 3.  Joe might have an argument that only doing things one way is simpler, however that argument can apply in both directions
> 
> The rest of the time I don't think it matters which of the encoding formats is used.  If you are looking at the SHA-1 hash of a certificate, does it matter if you use base64 or base64URL, not except for the minor size increase.  The padding characters themselves are protected from the URL by the outside base64URL encoding.
> 
> Except for the case of the dot encoding step, I think that the use of base64 URL can be dropped from a MUST to a SHOULD with the justifications being explained.  It was stated at the F2F that the difference in the decoders is minimal so there is no reason not to allow there and this would allow different people to make different decisions on this issue.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose