Mark Martinec wrote:
a public key in TXT RR like the following would be alright:
k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSq<CR><LF><SP>GSIb3DQEBAQUA...
while the one without a <SP> would not be syntactically correct:
k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSq<CR><LF>GSIb3DQEBAQUA...
It seems the requirement to insist on LWSP (e.g. a WSP must
follow CRLF) in a non- message header context is very much
artificial and unwarranted.
The ABNF also uses [FWS] with a very similar effect. The main
difference between [FWS] and LWSP is that the latter allows
"folded" lines consisting only of trailing white space:
"A" [FWS] "B" allows AB, A<WSP>B, A<CRLF><WSP>B, etc. But you
would need <obs-FWS> to match any A<CRLF><WSP><CRLF><WSP>B
"A" LWSP "B" has this ugly <obs-FWS> feature. It's a clear
MUST NOT for RFC 2822 generators. The DKIM base RFC uses a
clean <FWS> without <obs-FWS>, see (2.3)
But it also uses the 4234 <LWSP> in (2.4), sigh. It's IMO a
bit late to address your concern, but maybe Eric could still
do a s/LWSP/[FWS]/g in AUTH48 eliminating LWSP everywhere (?)
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html