ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Better DKIM Verification Example Needed

2005-07-27 19:16:07

On July 27, 2005 at 17:42, "Arvel Hathcock" wrote:

I suspect the answer is that we wish to maintain the capability for multiple 
signatures in a message - or - at least - we don't wish to require the 
stripping of existing signatures out of messages.  Multiple signatures, each 
split into multiple headers, present some parsing complexity while a single 
header places everything about a signature nicely in one place.

I'm not convinced about the complexity of multiple headers.  Parsing
is no more complicated.

*in detail*, especially wrt to "removing" b= and how surrounding
whitespace and/or semicolon is handled.

Agreed.  Can you propose some language to solve this problem?

After rereading the draft the direct implication is that whitespace
would be subject to the canonicalization rules.  An example showing
this may be beneficial to the reader.

Note, nulling of b= is mentioned in at least four locations,
leading to possible inconsistencies.  The processing of nulling b=
should only be mentioned once, and any other mentionings should xref
to it.

--ewh

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>