--On January 10, 2007 3:34:27 PM -0500 Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:
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?
I'm not sure what you mean by the "FEED" here. If you mean the data
transmitted using either DATA or BDAT you can have a message without
a trailing CRLF using BDAT.
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.
It's true that if the signer uses l= then you don't actually have to
add the trailing CRLF --- in fact, it doesn't have to canonicalize
anything at all after it has sent N bytes (where l=N). We could say
that, but it would be an implementation detail that probably doesn't
belong in the spec, and certainly not in normative language.
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."
See above.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html