On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:24:26 +0100, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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.
Is there anything that actually needs to be done with a UTF-8 header that
is not covered already in our DKIm spec.?
The EAI effort, whilst still formally in the "experimental" stage, is on
the verge of becoming a Proposed Standard. Indeed, it may even get there
before we do. So we may as well ensure that DKIM is compatible with it;
otherwise we shall be asked to make it compatible during AUTH48.
--
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