Mark Delany wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Ok, so we've this and we've that. Who's volunteering to
craft new text for the document?
I did so in my original note in this thread.
Sorry - I'd forgotten. Though you did have two options there
and we need to pick one, as Mike did in his mail.
So - do we have consensus for Mike's text (below) or not?
(Which cannot be an informative note IMO - it has to be
normative, even if its a corner-case.)
Ta,
S.
Mike's text (slightly edited):
"The canonical text can be thought of as a virtual representation of the
actual input. In particular, a body without any lines (ie, a null
body) is canonicalized as a single CRLF, which its canonical length
set to 2 (l=2). Note that the canonical length still applies to the
canonical text so an input of:
Last-Header:<CRLF>
<CRLF>
No. a) It's creating a "surprise" CRLF when none previously existed. b)
It differs from DK for no good reason.
Fair enough. So, given that there is confusion, what's your counter
proposal for clarifying text?
(BTW - I assume there are only two sensible things to do here, so
we can just get two text proposals and see which achieves rough
consensus.)
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html