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

[Michael Thomas]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>> "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.

There is a perfectly good reason: some things in the mail path strip 
trailing CRLF from the
body. We've experienced it firsthand and it's not uncommon, and would 
reduce the survival
rate if changed.
> Fair enough. So, given that there is confusion, what's your counter
> proposal for clarifying text?

BTW: we're *waaaaaaay* past last call here. This text has been here for 
time immemorial.
All I propose we do is clarify the meaning of what is actually in the 
draft now surrounding a
corner case. I think the bar should be a lot higher for actually 
changing the text to mean
something that it doesn't currently imply.

       Mike
>
> (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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html