[Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]

[Stephen Farrell]

Mark Delany wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tony Hansen wrote:
>>> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>> Ok, so we've this and we've that. Who's volunteering to
>>>> craft new text for the document?
>>>
>>> I did so in my original note in this thread.
>>
>> Sorry - I'd forgotten. Though you did have two options there
>> and we need to pick one, as Mike did in his mail.
>>
>> So - do we have consensus for Mike's text (below) or not?
>> (Which cannot be an informative note IMO - it has to be
>> normative, even if its a corner-case.)
>>
>> Ta,
>> S.
>>
>> Mike's text (slightly edited):
>>
>> "The canonical text can be thought of as a virtual representation of the
>> actual input. In particular, a body without any lines (ie, a null 
>> body) is canonicalized as a single CRLF, which its canonical length 
>> set to 2 (l=2). Note that the canonical length still applies to the 
>> canonical text so an input of:
>>
>> Last-Header:<CRLF>
>> <CRLF>
> 
> No. a) It's creating a "surprise" CRLF when none previously existed. b) 
> It differs from DK for no good reason.

Fair enough. So, given that there is confusion, what's your counter
proposal for clarifying text?

(BTW - I assume there are only two sensible things to do here, so
we can just get two text proposals and see which achieves rough
consensus.)

S.