-----Original Message-----
From: dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of McDowell, Brett
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:38 AM
To: dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: [dkim-ops] RFC 5672 and optional vs. default value of AUID
So, should the signature be processed as if the default value for the
AUID (i= value) were present or processed as if the AUID (i= value)
wasn't even part of the specification?
Actually now I'm confused by your use of "processed", so I want to give a more
precise answer.
If "processed" describes the blob of data fed to the hash function, then the
absence of "i=" in a signature must of course be reflected in the hashing when
verifying or it won't verify. (That is, you don't feed the default value
explicitly when "i=" is missing or the hash will not match.)
As far as determining the "i=" value once the signature has been processed, we
do the former; if you ask the library "What was the signer's identity?", we
will give back either the literal value (if "i=" was present) or the specified
default value based on "d=" (if "i=" was absent).
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops