ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] New DKIM canonicalization, was dkim-delegate-00

2014-06-15 05:49:30
On Sun 15/Jun/2014 08:15:18 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/15/2014 8:01 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

Somewhat less bogus than a new canonicalization that imparts new
semantics; a new tag would, one would think, always impart new semantics
in the first place.

I do not understand this predilection for trying to change the DKIM base
engine.  It doesn't need it.

I also don't understand the construct of 'special handling', nevermind
not liking the idea of it, especially since it explicitly creates the
complexity of "depends on the header field".

What I was suggesting was merely registering a new canonicalization
algorithm.  Legacy DKIM implementations won't understand it.  New ones
(presumably also modified to know about DMARC) will.

The new canonicalization should have actual differences from the current
ones that are deemed worthy for general use.

For example, how about 'very-relaxed' which is like relaxed but
eliminates all WSP from the calculation rather than just compressing it?

Let's take the occasion to also have it eliminate quotation marks.
See http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/016518.html and
following discussions.

Ale
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ietf-dkim] New DKIM canonicalization, was dkim-delegate-00, Alessandro Vesely <=