Expose base32 implementation?
beanow-at-crabnebula opened this issue · comments
I had a look at #34 and ran into kind of the opposite situation.
Thanks for this crate :] currently using it for a number of ID fields.
However I ran into a case where I wanted to use the underlying base32 directly: JTIs.
When we're talking about a JWT we already have access to a timestamp (iat
).
And so using ULIDs would make the timestamp data redundant.
Base32 encoding for 128 bits of data however is plenty sound!
So I thought about using the underlying base32 implementation and here we are.
Note: keep it as a low priority suggestion :]
I came up with an alternative format already being used as a dependency: base64url.
They're JWTs after all 😂
Copy-paste it if you want; it's licensed under MIT. I'm not personally interested in packaging it independently. Do be warned that the base32 representation is technically 130 bits that then get truncated into a u128.