Carsten Bormann writes:
> Quick question (can’t find in the archives whether that was discussed):
>
> I this YANG-JSON valid for a `binary`?
>
> "base64encodedvalue==“
Strictly speaking it isn't because it's out of range of the base64 encoding
function. I think though it is OK to be liberal in
On 2023-02-27, at 12:57, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> I this YANG-JSON valid for a `binary`?
>>
>> "base64encodedvalue==“
>
> Strictly speaking it isn't because it's out of range of the base64 encoding
> function.
Right.
> I think though it is OK to be liberal in what we accept here because
Dne 27. 02. 23 v 14:31 Carsten Bormann napsal(a):
On 2023-02-27, at 12:57, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I this YANG-JSON valid for a `binary`?
"base64encodedvalue==“
Strictly speaking it isn't because it's out of range of the base64 encoding
function.
Right.
I think though it is OK to be l
On 2023-02-27, at 15:04, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> Unlike non-alphabet characters, RFC 4648 doesn't say that such a character in
> encoded data is invalid.
Not explicitly, but it also gives you an algorithm for arriving at the encoded
value that never can result in the characters that I consi
This was discussed in late 2021. I switched from:
base64encodedvalue==
to:
BASE64VALUE=
in all my drafts then. Which document are you looking at?
Kent
> On Feb 27, 2023, at 9:24 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-27, at 15:04, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> Unli
On 2023-02-27, at 20:59, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> This was discussed in late 2021. I switched from:
>
> base64encodedvalue==
>
> to:
>
> BASE64VALUE=
>
> in all my drafts then. Which document are you looking at?
RFC 8366 (from 2018).
Do you have a pointer to the discussion?
Wa
>> This was discussed in late 2021. I switched from:
>>
>> base64encodedvalue==
>>
>> to:
>>
>> BASE64VALUE=
>>
>> in all my drafts then. Which document are you looking at?
>
> RFC 8366 (from 2018).
That document was published before the issue was discovered. File an Errata
f
Greetings Rob,
We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial.
Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata
report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the
Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at
https://ww
Greetings Rob,
We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial.
Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata
report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the
Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at
https://ww
Kent Watsen writes:
>>> This was discussed in late 2021. I switched from:
>>>
>>> base64encodedvalue==
>>>
>>> to:
>>>
>>> BASE64VALUE=
>>>
>>> in all my drafts then. Which document are you looking at?
>>
>> RFC 8366 (from 2018).
>
> That document was published before the issue wa
10 matches
Mail list logo
