Re: [netconf] base64encodedvalue== is an invalid base64 value

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 29 January 2021 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613F63A132D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:15:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 qOzgb_pNquMe for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3DB3A1324 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.152] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DSBVV4r4qzyXv; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 23:15:29 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210129191142.lxhtegbkgan37oyj@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 23:15:17 +0100
Cc: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6A06C21C-70F1-40D7-A690-B2AC94BC9CB3@tzi.org>
References: <010001774f5f7df0-89830501-6d1a-465b-a172-dd95e98e8a3e-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20210129191142.lxhtegbkgan37oyj@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ezG8OdNe-m_IA7AUB3I9rvu6vsY>
Subject: Re: [netconf] base64encodedvalue== is an invalid base64 value
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:15:40 -0000

On 29. Jan 2021, at 20:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> Who cares whether this value roundtrips in an examples??

I’d expect at least some decent implementations will check for RFC 4648’s mandate "These pad bits MUST be set to
   zero by conforming encoders”, just like some check for the right number of equals signs.
Examples that fail in decent implementations are suboptimal.
(They might even be used in arguments to claim that this decency needs to be removed.)

Grüße, Carsten