--- Earl Hood <earl(_at_)earlhood(_dot_)com> wrote:
In this case, I see no over-engineering done. I see suggestions
that are practical and provide no real impact to performance.
If I am not mistaken, the body canonicaliztion algorithm I proposed
is very similar to what OpenPGP does. The only addition is
skipping all trailing LWSP at the end of the message.
The header canonicalization is a little more complex, but I see
nothing there that cannot easily be implemented.
I suspect you already know this, but *everyone* appears to have their favorite
canonicalization formula. And they are all different at the edges. As a
proposer of - dare I say it - Yet Another Canonicalization Algorithm, it'd be
interesting to hear your ideas on how we should assess the merits of each alg.
and how we determine whether one algorithm is significantly superior to another
... as opposed to just being different.
Mark.