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

[Michael Thomas]

Stephen Farrell wrote:

>
> Mike,
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>
>>>> #13 3.4.5, 3.5 and 3.7. "l=0" is allowed, but "bh=" is REQUIRED, 
>>>> which is a bit
>>>> of a contradiction.
>>>
>>>
>>> "l=0;bh=;" seems valid.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't seem valid to me, and it's certainly not the natural thing 
>> that
>> an implementor would do which is to just take the value of 
>> SHA[1|256]_Final
>> and compare it against the bh= value. Leaving it as is doesn't create an
>> unnecessary new case.
>
>
> I think I agree that "l=0;bh=;" is wrong, but I'm not clear what you're
> saying that "bh=" should contain when "l=0"?


Just the normal base 64 encoding of the 20 byte output of SHA1/SHA256 --
nothing different than normal, eg l= > 0.

          Mike, not knowing what those values are offhand :)