Eric Allman wrote:
I've changed the text to read "If there is no body or no trailing CRLF
on the message body, a CRLF is added" in order to avoid any confusion.
Eric, this is good. I will comment that the only confusion is there is
an indirect implication that the final two bytes of the FEED must have a
<CRLF>.
Which is not true, right?
Because a) A signer can canonicalized the message, including adding a
<CRLF> if necessary, that yields size X, but B) the signer decides to
hash only L=N bytes where N < X bytes.
That was the only "scratch head" thought I had about all this - The
reason to add a <CRLF> if a signer was not going to hash the entire body.
So I guess, if anything, a statement, sentence or comment that states
"the need to add a <CRLF> is only necessary if the entire body is going
to be hashed."
---
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html