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

[Dave Crocker]

>> 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.
> Huh? I'm saying that changing this is *NOT* academic

Wow. Sorry. Thunderbird got very creative.

That text after the angle bracket was from an entirely unrelated message and I 
know I didn't put it there by an accidental cut and paste.  In other words, my 
note was only the first sentence of the first paragraph and all of the second 
paragraph.


: there are things in the
>  real world which will cause more message signature to fail if we make this 
> change. You're not in favor of that are you?

Two lines of argument.  You were invoking the 'installed base' argument and I 
was noting that it is not valid to use that, at this stage, for this type of issue.

As for the rest of the thread and the effort to resolve this ambiguity, I was 
offering no comment.  (I'm tracking it, but have nothing constructive to add, 
especially since it seems to have developed as a thorough consideration of a 
real problem and real solutions to it.)


> I thought this was the entire point of running code: to find out how the spec
>  works in real life. If that's just an academic exercise, there's something
> seriously wrong.

Yup.  But casting it as "people are already using it" is different than saying 
"it is the best solution to the problem".

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net