ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]

2006-12-20 09:14:39


Michael Thomas wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
There you confused me - aren't we going to make it easy for every
subsequent coder by telling them about this in advance? But its ok
that I'm confused, I often am:-)
Not if we change the current sense of the spec, no. If we change rather
than clarify the current draft, every developer is going to have to go through
the same detective work on why signatures with lone CRLF's in the body are
being stripped causing signatures to fail. This is *not* intuitive and not easy work.

Ok, I see what you meant now. The robustness/deletion argument is
still much better IMO.

> The best outcome is to have a *robust* and *clear* canonicalization.

Well, both seem equally clear to me. I see you robustness argument
too, but I guess we'll see what others have to say in a bit.
(I'm offline from now 'till tomorrow:-)

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>