On 2025-07-11, at 20:00, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote: > > Notes > ----- > The definition for Base64url is more strict than RFC4648, but doesn't qualify > that with keyword from RFC 2119. The corrected text uses RFC 2119 keywords > to be more specific and consistent.
Common misconception: A protocol definition needs RFC 2119 keywords to say anything at all; anything not bolstered with an RFC 2119 keyword is not actually meant seriously. Here, the report is about a *definition of a term*. The term definition clearly says what “Base64url Encoding” means in this specification. Among other things, it meaning of that term includes the detail "with all trailing '=' characters omitted” — unconditionally so. The proposed replacement text would replace this clear definition with a “SHOULD”, which is entirely incorrect — there is no circumstance in which a “=“ is permitted in RFC 7515 “Base64url Encoding”. The proposed change would be a massive, unmotivated deviation from the WG intent. By the way, that definition is referenced from other RFCs, which would need to be examined for damage if this definition is retroactively changed. Reject. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
