ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization

2006-07-20 09:58:22
Barry Leiba wrote:

> (I'm just picking a random message from this thread to respond to; this isn't a specific response to this specific message.)
>
> I see a clear consensus in this discussion, and I think the issue's actually already handled in the spec. In section 5.3, we say this:
>
>    Should the message be submitted to the signer with any local encoding
>    that will be modified before transmission, such conversion to
>    canonical form MUST be done before signing.  In particular, some
>    systems use local line separator conventions (such as the Unix
>    newline character) internally rather than the SMTP-standard CRLF
>    sequence.  All such local conventions MUST be converted to canonical
>    format before signing.
>
> I think it might be helpful to mention that some messages are formed with bare-CR, as well as with bare-LF, to clarify this particular situation, but beyond that we're OK.


This paragraph is rather misleading because it implies to me that you must
convert to the canonical form for the *hash* function, not that you must convert the message before forwarding. I think that the problem is that the word "canonical" really wants to be "2822 format", and in particular it might be nice to give a
cross reference to that section in 2822.

> Mike: Can you live with this answer, even if it's not what you'd prefer?

Towel->Ring->Throw.

I'd still like to hear from Eric about this though.

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