IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] binary data in I-JSON

Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com> Mon, 21 July 2014 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cromis@gmail.com>
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 7D2641A04A7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Sgfm1zESRAGT for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B4231A0452 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id at20so7371154iec.39 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nHoN/Ozhq7IfGyRIm3tKQj9mggETj/qQzsmNyoOk1Rs=; b=K3cRBFIfLz0z3GI6Ibz122PqPCcffEGkF4s6u6PCOxiXOWF6hpHIY0bbwK39LPaKb7 ztePJpXnFO6Frvj1a1IGdrk/P41LOaWHZ8KtsRyTTR20zNn/52nV1D+dUj5Aw2ZLSbWn 11oEMv+GMG6TSFGykuMml+54fzLzJpUyk2O1w9MHeYODSCURNMhMPU/UawCtJrTh7g5D PTz0WlPVJd/nvWOn3mlyh8Jb7EJ8Tvv/r/4oyy6ayhYcCJxJxgWi1rqqDLdc4iqQbP/U vWUHpxxwfOg6G9yqOu2tlsisU0sqj2PxI+7832EFB+RsUlbVnSQJvXpGUV0ZKYFw4d6g l54Q==
X-Received: by 10.50.67.7 with SMTP id j7mr9489188igt.8.1405977861629; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: cromis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.16.141 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <357CBD07-7013-4921-B141-C299082C279E@tzi.org>
References: <2EB7C24D-5A94-47DC-877E-E0EFC6F789BA@nic.cz> <CAHBU6iur+AQO=ZfxiZ8SkEyzJE_huuiVyP1BtbKUHpv2SGXmOg@mail.gmail.com> <E5EF9616-991C-4CE2-B783-A8ACAA96453B@tzi.org> <CAHBU6itCO78Re+naY8SW9zKTTxQU=fiJy9ZmDdUy9kqn9ZOn2Q@mail.gmail.com> <357CBD07-7013-4921-B141-C299082C279E@tzi.org>
From: Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:24:01 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8QFL6IYn9ugZDP7HUFTglFEjQhM
Message-ID: <CAO1wJ5S=u6LRboUE9xxb7+pDieZAErA2bexrhdQ4H=-AGLp0Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/moe71IfjIRQCcIJVkB8Rt7sloGc
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 21:24:23 -0000

I don't know that there's enough evidence to say whether base64,
base64url, hex, or hacky-use-of-illegal-\u-escapes would be most
compatible with existing practice. I mean, there is one data point
here obviously.

Since there is admittedly no difference between base64 and base64url
for the purposes of JSON I can't see that it matters much which one is
recommended; even though I agree that base64url is to be preferred
where possible, base64 doesn't seem "wrong", but maybe I am missing
something.

I still think the binary encoding is a recommendation worth making,
whichever way.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2014, at 16:04, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
>> I vote for "compatibly".
>
> OK, so strike section 4.4; that covers all the bases.
> But if you want to make a RECOMMENDATION, base64url is still the right one.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email