On 17/May/11 20:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/17/2011 1:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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.
Yes, I put the remaining changes quickly and badly just to suggest
that, IMHO, there is room for improvement. In particular, hash-alg
looks like an overloaded function that can take two or three
parameters, but its definitions are hard to spot.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html