Field separators, again

[Ken Horn]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Ken Horn wrote:
>
>>>>    "digest_type" in place of "auth_type",
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely not.  What if the next revision uses UMAC?
>>>
>> what does auth mean? Authentication? Authorisation? Auth of what/who?
>
>
> Authentication.
>
Lets make it explicit, imo.

>> To whom? I prefer digest, but maybe that's because I don't really 
>> know the difference between a digest and a MAC. How about 
>> "hash_type", cos to me, they're all just fancy hash algorithms.
>
>
> That would be very inaccurate.  UMAC is *not* a hash algorithm.

OK, how about token_type (with a token param)/ algorithm/ 
secret_squirrel_page_no. I still like the X.500/ldap, style of 
"token={UMAC}g3h2ha6d84bc", *if* we only need a single descriptor, any 
more and the multiple field option is better I think.