Stephen Farrell wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
#13 3.4.5, 3.5 and 3.7. "l=0" is allowed, but "bh=" is REQUIRED,
which is a bit
of a contradiction.
"l=0;bh=;" seems valid.
It doesn't seem valid to me, and it's certainly not the natural thing
an implementor would do which is to just take the value of
and compare it against the bh= value. Leaving it as is doesn't create an
unnecessary new case.
I think I agree that "l=0;bh=;" is wrong, but I'm not clear what you're
saying that "bh=" should contain when "l=0"?
Just the normal base 64 encoding of the 20 byte output of SHA1/SHA256 --
nothing different than normal, eg l= > 0.
Mike, not knowing what those values are offhand :)
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to