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 that
an implementor would do which is to just take the value of SHA[1|256]_Final
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"?
I think I'd prefer to outlaw "l=0" and make "bh="
optional for just that case, but that might be a bit broken for
It also adds another special case.
Not to mention that l=0 is a perfectly valid 2822 mail message.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to