On 2012-07-17 20:01, Mike Jones wrote:
You should actually probably make that name change request to the HTTPbis
working group. I suspect that if they decide to change the name, that we could
direct the RFC editor to make the same name change as HTTPbis does.
...
HTTPbis describes the production as:
"The "b64token" syntax allows the 66 unreserved URI characters
([RFC3986]), plus a few others, so that it can hold a base64, base64url
(URL and filename safe alphabet), base32, or base16 (hex) encoding, with
or without padding, but excluding whitespace ([RFC4648])." --
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20.html#rfc.section.2.1.p.4>
I think that's sufficiently clear, and "b64token" is actually a good
name for that ABNF production.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
