Re: [sidr] base64 line breaks and draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04.txt

[Richard Hansen <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-08-04 09:48, Rob Austein wrote:
> At Tue, 4 Aug 2015 07:06:22 -0400, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>> Preferences for Richard?s option #2 (allow but do not mandate line
>> breaks) or for Richard?s option #3 (mandate line breaks)?  Note that
>> option #3 means we have to settle on a max line length.
> 
> Option #2 matches the running code.
> 
> Absent some pressing need to make TALs fit on punch cards, the only
> benefit that option #3 brings is the opportunity to declare running
> code retroactively out of spec for trivial reasons.

I'm confused by your "out of spec" comment.  In what way would option #3
render existing code out of spec where option #2 wouldn't?

The advantage to option #3 is compatibility with OpenSSL's lame base64
implementation.

My stated preference for option #3 should not be taken as a strong
preference.  I am OK with option #2:  it's not much harder for people to
implement (working around OpenSSL's problems is annoying but not
difficult), it puts a tiny bit of pressure on OpenSSL to improve their
implementation, and it avoids the need to decide on a specific maximum
line length.

-Richard