[ietf-dkim] editorials and nits

[Stephen Farrell]

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie> writes:
> 
>> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand the purpose of the fixed exponent of F4. It's
>>> not needed for interoperability because a PKCS#1 RSAPublicKey
>>> (which is what this document implies, though does not say
>>> is stored in the DNS) structure contains the exponent.
>> My fault I think. In an earlier thread we decided that playing with
>> the public exponent value could use too much space in the TXT record
>> and that we'd hardcode the dkim's "rsa" alg id to keys using 65537.
> 
> This striked me as fairly misguided optimization. 

It wasn't really an optimization - I mistakenly thought that the current
implementations used "p=base64(modulus)" and asked "what if we want to
change e?". Apparently, at that time, none of us knew all of this in
sufficient detail to say: "you can do that now" ;-) Mea culpa.

But, the main thing for now is that the current implementations are ok
in this respect, and we'll fixup base to match properly.

S.