[ietf-dkim] Re: bh=; l=0;

[Paul Hoffman]

At 8:36 AM -0700 7/2/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
>Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>>At 7:23 AM -0700 7/2/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see what the problem is: l= is the canonical byte count, and that's
>>>just as true with bh as is was before bh was invented.
>>
>>
>>The question is, what string do you hash when l= is given? I am 
>>interpreting the spec as that you has the string with the length 
>>given in l=; are you reading it as you hash the entire body 
>>regardless of the presence of l=?
>
>No, the former lest l= mean nothing at all. I don't seem to recall 
>this being an
>interop problem in any of the implementations we have now either.

Ah, good. It would be good to add a sentence about this to the spec, then.