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

[Dave Crocker]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Mark Delany wrote:
>> 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?


Sorry, Mike, but that particular line of argument isn't applicable here.> Hence,
it was pure academic exercise.

Working group specs are subject to semantic change up to the point of IESG
approval. Anyone deploying code based on a spec prior to that moment is taking a
well-advertised risk.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net