[ietf-dkim] Re: signature construct

[Stephen Farrell]

Amir Herzberg wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
>>
>> Folks - was Earl's idea considered before? 
> 
> I must admit, I thought this is what we do... definitely, we _should_ 
> do....

Don't think it currently is - section 3.5, 3rd para suggests not,
though maybe I'm misreading the draft?

Details can be figured out later (hopefully after the "how to
be careful with hash functions" situation is clearer).

Stephen.