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

[Stephen Farrell]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Mark Delany wrote:
>> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> Yes. In my mind there's a substantial difference in clarifying an 
>>> edge condition
>>
>> Last call is intended to find bugs. We found a bug, let's fix it.
> 
> Last call ended 4 months ago.

Doesn't matter. He's right that we found a bug and we should fix
it.

>> I don't think the "lateness" has anything to do with it since there 
>> are bugs in either direction and no one even noticed until recently. 
>> It can hardly be the case that it is breaking much to apply the fix.
> 
> Well, we have a deployment and changing this from the current sense 
> would be
> breaking messages that would have otherwise survived. That is what I 
> recently
> discovered. Do you have evidence to the contrary with your DKIM deployment?

If the two fixes differ in how they affect signature robustness then
that is a significant difference. Can you elaborate? (Sorry, I'm not
a mail person so I don't get all the nuances of what can happen to
the last few bytes of a message.)

S.