Eric Rescorla wrote:
Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> writes:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
I don't understand the purpose of the fixed exponent of F4. It's
not needed for interoperability because a PKCS#1 RSAPublicKey
(which is what this document implies, though does not say
is stored in the DNS) structure contains the exponent.
My fault I think. In an earlier thread we decided that playing with
the public exponent value could use too much space in the TXT record
and that we'd hardcode the dkim's "rsa" alg id to keys using 65537.
This striked me as fairly misguided optimization.
It wasn't really an optimization - I mistakenly thought that the current
implementations used "p=base64(modulus)" and asked "what if we want to
change e?". Apparently, at that time, none of us knew all of this in
sufficient detail to say: "you can do that now" ;-) Mea culpa.
But, the main thing for now is that the current implementations are ok
in this respect, and we'll fixup base to match properly.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html