Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Oops, this is a separate issue. But I hope it's also not
contentious.
[...]
Since I'm not exactly an EAI/IDNA expert...
The only thing that's not obvious to me is whether the hash functions
should hash the bytes of the UTF-8, or convert them to UTF wide
characters and hash those. Depending on the way the MTA is written,
either might seem more "natural", but I'm inclined to say you hash the
UTF-8 bytes because the SHA-1 and SHA-256 hash functions are defined
on bytes, not wider things.
Can you suggest the exact change to make here,
or confirm there isn't one?
Murray,
I viewed this as another layer issue. Adding a DKIM-Signature: header
is no different than any other RFC5322 header where UTF8 conversion is
already a consideration. But maybe to provide guidance for what parts
of the DKIM-Signature RFC5322 header needs to be UTF8 ready, I think
that might the following text is useful.
RFC5322 messages should be prepared with UTF-8 readiness
when required. For the DKIM-Signature RFC5322 header,
implementators SHOULD focus on tags d=, s= and i= to be
UTF8 ready.
I think the above will help implementators with the engineering
incentive for UTF8 conversions is more for general mail operations
than it is specifically for DKIM.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html