ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Relaxed body canonicalization

2006-06-26 10:28:32
Paul Hoffman wrote:

Greetings again. Issue 1295 ("issue with relaxed body canonicalization?") was discussed on the Jabber chat last Thursday. I was not able to attend the chat. The resolution came out as:

Brief discussion on whether to leave it in for now, consensus is to leave it and remove later (maybe at move to Draft Std) if it turns out to be unused.
1295: CLOSE, no change.

The transcript, from <http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/dkim/2006-06-22.html>, is:

[11:42:35] <Barry Leiba> 1295: issue with relaxed body canonicalization?
[11:42:51] <Barry Leiba> I think we decided that Sendmail will fix this, and we won't change DKIM for it. Right?
[11:43:04] <thomasm> I don't think so
[11:43:07] <eric> i feel strongly about keeping relaxed header, but i'm neutral on relaxed body.
[11:43:09] <Barry Leiba> Oops, wrong one.
[11:43:15] <Barry Leiba> I was thinking about header.
[11:43:16] <eric> there's no sendmail issue with relaxed body.
[11:43:19] <Barry Leiba> For body.....
[11:43:39] <eric> the main reason i can see to keep it is symmetry with the header.
[11:43:42] <thomasm> I'm sort of weakly in favor of keeping it
[11:43:51] <sm-msk> what he said
[11:43:58] <sm-msk> what both said actually
[11:43:59] <eric> deleting it would simplify the code, but not by much.
[11:44:07] <thomasm> I'd sort of like to keep options open, though with no good empirical reason [11:44:10] <Barry Leiba> As I see it, we can keep relaxed body for now, and toss it in revision (like when we move to Draft Std) if it's not used.
[11:44:12] <sm-msk> and maybe some rewriter we haven't anticipated yet
[11:44:13] <eric> so I'm +0.1 for keeping it.
[11:44:28] <thomasm> +1 Barry
[11:44:35] <Barry Leiba> Does anyone REALLY want to toss it now?
[11:44:38] <sm-msk> i'm a little stronger for that, let's say +(2/3)
[11:45:02] <Barry Leiba> 1295: CLOSE, no change.
[11:45:08] <thomasm> I got the feeling that would have been Paul's preference


The last comment was definitely wrong (assuming that I'm the "Paul" being referred to): I definitely think relaxed body canonicalization should be removed from the -base spec unless there is a known use case.

FWIW, I was replying to Barry's "Does anyone REALLY..." above.

      Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html