[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Russ Housley]

Mike:

I have no problem with this posting.  It does exactly what I am 
requesting.  The message would not have been sent if Dave followed 
the format that you did.

I especially like the part where you said:  "... there is absolutely 
no reason why we need to break existing compatibility to achieve the 
goal of being able to determine whether ..."

I am sorry that you somehow feel that I have attacked you.  This 
exactly the kind of discussion that is in line with the charter.

Russ

At 11:35 AM 3/21/2006, you wrote:

>I'm really astonished that an open item that had no list discussion that
>I can find and that is backward incompatible with -allman-01 is being
>"accepted". Why? Worse, is that there is absolutely no reason why we
>need to break existing compatibility to achieve the goal of being able
>to determine whether it's the header or body that's broken. Nor does it
>appear that anybody's thought through which -- header or body --
>actually more likely to break in transit.
>
>I have for quite some time been placing a hash of the headers alone in
>the DKIM signature in an unassigned tag (X= in this message) to help
>me determine whether it's the headers or the body that broke on a failed
>signature. It's cheap: I just call SHAx_Final when the headers are
>hashed; it's unobtrusive: it doesn't require that we change our current
>hashing mechanism; and it doesn't bring up any nettlesome issues with
>l= which are tricky.
>
>Given this, I consider the adoption to be seriously harmful to our
>existing implementations, and counterproductive.
>
>                 Mike
>_______________________________________________
>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>