[Json] binary data in I-JSON
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Mon, 21 July 2014 17:40 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F221A00F1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FwrI-k3L0E4W for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8AFB1A017F for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-a243.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a243.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.162.67]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5448613FACA for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:40:37 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1405964437; bh=gllq2Rjc2O+7cCRCTj9KeLuk6pLBFBwtyScTiRpv9xM=; h=From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:Message-Id: Date:To:Mime-Version; b=H1LMvFb5Q6h8VkWK04o+7oQYgPlmRfDK2sw9L91yEjPa1mAXjiC+ALe4E/vpIFVj9 0B0W1z4doEm39RrDnyndzypcp+zBLFuuxxRiljwCkyCeqadArei6vs4WR7XDlPkyew OY4jNXZTpDEn8kFVOehKjWGZ++lOl4FnYjUhjs+I=
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2EB7C24D-5A94-47DC-877E-E0EFC6F789BA@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:40:34 -0400
To: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/kD6fMDlw2HNi5l2hF59AiIGrAvo
Subject: [Json] binary data in I-JSON
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:40:43 -0000
Hi, I’d like to ask about the reasoning behind the choice of base64url as the encoding format for binary data. I am working on the I-D http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-00 which defines JSON encoding for data modelled with the YANG language [RFC6020]. Such data are primarily intended to be used in remote configuration protocols such as NETCONF or RESTCONF, so it seems to be a good use case for I-JSON and we would certainly like to comply with I-JSON rules. However, YANG has the data type “binary” which requires base64 encoding. So I wonder - is there any reason for preferring base64url over base64? We most likely don’t need the encoded data to be URL-safe. Thanks, Lada -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
- [Json] binary data in I-JSON Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Json] binary data in I-JSON Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] binary data in I-JSON Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] binary data in I-JSON Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] binary data in I-JSON Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Json] binary data in I-JSON Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] binary data in I-JSON Jacob Davies