The Base45 Data Encoding
draft-faltstrom-base45-12

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this specification. I think it will be helpful.

I have one question -

why is normative language not used in section 4.1 specially in the following section?

"if the data is to be sent via some other transport, a transport encoding suitable for that transport should be used instead of Base45. It is not recommended to first encode data in Base45 and then encode the resulting string in for example Base64 if the data is to be sent via email. Instead the Base45 encoding should be removed, and the data itself should be encoded in Base64."

I find this recommendations are very important for the realisation of this protocol.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-faltstrom-base45-10

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Robert Sparks for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/4EYF7jHNjPWxWmNDPA-18gdzJoo).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 7, paragraph 1
```
-    implementions are stable.
+    implementations are stable.
+            ++
```

### Boilerplate

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

### Grammar/style

#### "Table of Contents", paragraph 1
```
F-8 or ISO/IEC 8859-1 encoded text. Thus QR-codes cannot be used to encode ar
                                    ^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".

#### Section 4.1, paragraph 0
```
the data is to be sent via email. Instead the Base45 encoding should be remo
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Instead".

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 3
```
706 equals 11 + 45 * 11 + 45 * 45 * 8 so the sequence in base 45 is [11 11 8
                                    ^^^
```
Use a comma before "so" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

#### Section 6, paragraph 5
```
nd Gaby Whitehead for the feedback. Also everyone that have been working with
                                    ^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Also".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  No real objections, just some suggestions/nits that may improve this document for folks not familiar with QR codes.

(1) It wasn't really clear to me why Base-45 was useful, and why Base-64 wouldn't work.  I had missed the comment at the beginning of section 4 and it was only when I looked up the character sets for QR codes that it made sense.  I would suggest adding a sentence in the introduction to highlight/repeat this important bit of context.

(2) The section on "When to use Base45" doesn't really ever seem to say when to use it, and seems to only list when not to use it.  Perhaps this section is missing some text, or maybe the title should be changed to the reverse sense.

(3) In the Security Considerations, this sentence doesn't scan:
  "it MUST the encoded data if it contains characters
  outside the base alphabet (in Table 1) when interpreting base-encoded
  data."

(4) In the Security Considerations:

  Even though a Base45 encoded string contains only characters from the
  alphabet in Table 1 the following case has to be considered: The
  string "FGW" represents 65535 (FFFF in base 16), which is a valid
  encoding.  The string "GGW" would represent 65536 (10000 in base 16),
  which is represented by more than 16 bit.

bit -> to bits.  This paragraph doesn't really sit well on its own and I would suggest merging the following paragraph into a single paragraph.

(5) Finally, it wasn't clear to me how a QR reader would know that it is reading/parsing some Base-45 encoded text from a QR code.  Is there a separate specification that indicates this?

Thanks,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Harald Alvestrand for his ART ART review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/S-mc9GCVZ7Lxr1ydDaLGDawB4Tg/.

Only one additional editorial nit from me:

  For example, it MUST the encoded data if it contains characters
  outside the base alphabet (in Table 1) when interpreting base-encoded
  data.

FP: missing the word "reject".

Francesca

# Document Shepherd Writeup

## Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

  No.  This draft describes base45, as developed by ISO, for the Internet
  community.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

  No current working group deals with this kind of encoding.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  There are numerous implementations of base45 encoders/decoders.  It is a
  common encoding for QR code content.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

  No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  Not applicable.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

    All such issues should be addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Informational.  This is documenting an existing base45 encoding for the
    Internet community.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

    Applicable IPR declarations and policy for ISO/IEC 18004 are available
    at http://www.iso.org/patents .  A cursory scan of the excel spreadsheet
    did not reveal any declarations for "18004".

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

    No nits of note.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    Despite its Informational status all references are listed as Normative,
    since compliant implementations would need to treat said references as
    normative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    ISO/IEC 18004:2015.  This is available for purchase, though several free
    PDF copies of previous versions are available when searching.  The base45
    subsection appears unchanged across published editions.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

    There is a normative dependency on a document from another SDO (see above).

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

    None.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    Not applicable.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

    This document has no considerations for IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    None.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-faltstrom-base45-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-03-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-faltstrom-base45@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The Base45 Data Encoding) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'The Base45 Data Encoding'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-03-02. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the Base45 encoding scheme which is built
  upon the Base64, Base32 and Base16 encoding schemes.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-faltstrom-base45/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

[The version of the shepherd template used here is dated: 01 November 2019.]

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The standard is maintained by another SDO (ISO), and it documented here
for the benefit of the IETF community.

    Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
    Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can
    be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The
    approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document describes the Base45 encoding scheme which is built
upon the Base64, Base32 and Base16 encoding schemes.

Working Group Summary

No current working group deals with this kind of encoding.

Document Quality

There are numberous base45 implementations.  The encoding documented
here appears in ISO 18004:2015 and even as far back as ISO 18004:2000.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
    Document Shepherd. ...

I have reviewed the later versions of this document, and used this document
to construct a C++ toy implementation with unittests to confirm the correct
treatment of the encoding and decoding examples in this document.

I haven not reviewed ISO 18004.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
    of the reviews that have been performed?

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
    perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML,
    or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This is an encoding scheme like base16, base32, or base64.  The regular IETF
review procedures should suffice.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
    with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
    should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
    certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
    need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed
    those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
    document, detail those concerns here.

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
    required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
    have already been filed. If not, explain why.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
    summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR claims filed as of this shepherd write-up.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
    document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
    with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
    understand and agree with it?

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
    email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
    separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

This document has a reference to an external document: ISO 18004.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
    such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
    normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
    references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is a normative reference to ISO 18004.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list
    these downward references to support the Area Director in the
    Last Call procedure.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs?  ...

No existing RFCs are affected by this document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
    document.  ...

There are no considerations for IANA in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
    allocations.  ...

There are no considerations for IANA in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections
    of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
    rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

There is no such formal language in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, ...

No YANG module defined by this document.

[The version of the shepherd template used here is dated: 01 November 2019.]

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The standard is maintained by another SDO (ISO), and it documented here
for the benefit of the IETF community.

    Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Not yet.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
    Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can
    be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The
    approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document describes the Base45 encoding scheme which is built
upon the Base64, Base32 and Base16 encoding schemes.

Working Group Summary

No current working group deals with this kind of encoding.

Document Quality

There are numberous base45 implementations.  The encoding documented
here appears in ISO 18004:2015 and even as far back as ISO 18004:2000.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
    Document Shepherd. ...

I have reviewed the later versions of this document, and used this document
to construct a C++ toy implementation with unittests to confirm the correct
treatment of the encoding and decoding examples in this document.

I haven not reviewed ISO 18004.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
    of the reviews that have been performed?

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
    perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML,
    or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This is an encoding scheme like base16, base32, or base64.  The regular IETF
review procedures should suffice.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
    with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
    should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
    certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
    need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed
    those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
    document, detail those concerns here.

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
    required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
    have already been filed. If not, explain why.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
    summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR claims filed as of this shepherd write-up.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
    document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
    with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
    understand and agree with it?

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
    email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
    separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

This document has a reference to an external document: ISO 18004.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
    such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
    normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
    references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is a normative reference to ISO 18004.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list
    these downward references to support the Area Director in the
    Last Call procedure.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs?  ...

No existing RFCs are affected by this document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
    document.  ...

There are no considerations for IANA in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
    allocations.  ...

There are no considerations for IANA in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections
    of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
    rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

There is no such formal language in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, ...

No YANG module defined by this document.

[The version of the shepherd template used here is dated: 01 November 2019.]

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

TODO(ek)

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

TODO(ek)

    Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

TODO(ek)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
    Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can
    be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The
    approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document describes the Base45 encoding scheme which is built
upon the Base64, Base32 and Base16 encoding schemes.

Working Group Summary

No current working group deals with this kind of encoding.

Document Quality

TODO(ek): Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the
specification? ...

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
    Document Shepherd. ...

I have reviewed the later versions of this document, and used this document
to construct a C++ toy implementation with unittests to confirm the correct
treatment of the encoding and decoding examples in this document.

I haven not reviewed ISO 18004.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
    of the reviews that have been performed?

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
    perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML,
    or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This is an encoding scheme like base16, base32, or base64.  The regular IETF
review procedures should suffice.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
    with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
    should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
    certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
    need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed
    those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
    document, detail those concerns here.

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
    required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
    have already been filed. If not, explain why.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
    summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR claims filed as of this shepherd write-up.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
    document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
    with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
    understand and agree with it?

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
    email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
    separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

TODO(ek): fill in after IETF LC review/discussion.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

This document has a reference to an external document: ISO 18004.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
    such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
    normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
    references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is a normative reference to ISO 18004.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list
    these downward references to support the Area Director in the
    Last Call procedure.

TODO(ek): fill in after authors reply to inquiries.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs?  ...

No existing RFCs are affected by this document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
    document.  ...

There are no considerations for IANA in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
    allocations.  ...

There are no considerations for IANA in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections
    of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
    rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

There is no such formal language in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, ...

No YANG module defined by this document.

[shephered write-up questions]

In course of preparing the shepherd write-up I should ask each author:

    (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
        disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
        of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.

        If not, explain why.

I also have questions about ISO18004, but more on that below.


[[ comments ]]

[S2; comment]

* Running Lars' (ietf-reviewtool)[https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool]
  (w/o grammar checking) highlighted that 2119 is used but should be 8174 if PS
  track is still intended.

[S4.1; question]

* I'm slightly confused by the normative reference here to ISO/IEC 18004:2015.  Is
  ISO18004 the actual source of this encoding standard?  If so, should this document
  be Informational (like MD5/RFC 1321)?  If not, is 18004 really normative?