Mark Delany wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 02:29:26PM -0400, Barry Leiba allegedly wrote:
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.
OK; if you can propose a rewrite to Eric that'll make the intended
meaning clearer, I'm sure he'll appreciate that.
What Mike was saying sounded pretty good. Along the lines of "must
produce rfc2822 conformant output as a consequence of signing" sounds
about right.
My last message passed yours in transit. I see one significant difference
between them:
This suggests that DKIM is "producing" the conformance. I think we should not
say that. It is not DKIM's job to go around *changing* bodies, or the like.
I think we do our part of the job merely by saying that a message handed to the
DKIM signing component MUST be rfc 2822 compliant.
(That we might add some informative text discussing the issue is a separate
matter.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html