On 5/17/2011 1:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Shouldn't it say
More formally, pseudo-code for the signature algorithm is: body-hash =
hash-alg (canon-body limited by l-param) data-hash = hash-alg
(h-headers, D-SIG with body-hash) signature = sig-alg (d-domain,
selector, data-hash)
where:
body-hash: is the output from hashing the body, using hash-alg. It is set
as the value of the bh= tag in D-SIG for computing the data-hash.
I think this should be limited only to change "content-hash" to "body-hash"
in the "data-hash" line, which is correct.
Right. This was my error. the 'content' string was a carry-over from my
attempt to define DKIM
in terms of Doseta. I tried to do string replacements but missed this one.
The remaining changes are inconsistent with the rest of the section or don't
clarify anything. For example, the "hash-alg" function on the body-hash line
takes the canonicalized body and the l-param as inputs, and produce the
body-hash. Thus, that expression is correct as-is.
Not merely inconsistent. The existing text specifies parameters to routines
that do internal processes. This is a standard form for specifying interfaces.
The proposed change tries to move some of the processing into the parameter, and
hence is not an interface specification (unless, for example, the goal is to
tell the caller to truncate the body, rather than have the subroutine do the
truncating.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html