On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:36:42 -0000, Barry Leiba <leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Most of the changes that Eric made should be non-controversial,
involving clarifications and tweaking that have helped us (the draft
authors and the working group chairs) explain things to the IESG.
Regardless, though, of the non-controversial nature of those changes,
the chairs would like the working group to review the document fully.
Simple Canonicalization
The revised wording achieves what it was intended to achieve, namely that
an empty/absent <body> result in a single <CRLF> to be hashed.
What is not clear is WHY this alternative was chosen (as opposed to
letting it result in an empty <body>).
I hae repeatedly asked for a reason as to WHY this outcome is thought to
be desirable, but no explanation has been forthcoming. So I ask the
question again now.
WHY?
Note, this is not (yet) an objection to the draft - just a request for
explanation.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html