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

[Stephen Farrell]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> There you confused me - aren't we going to make it easy for every
>> subsequent coder by telling them about this in advance? But its ok
>> that I'm confused, I often am:-)
> Not if we change the current sense of the spec, no. If we change rather
> than clarify the current draft, every developer is going to have to go 
> through
> the same detective work on why signatures with lone CRLF's in the body are
> being stripped causing signatures to fail. This is *not* intuitive and 
> not easy
> work. 

Ok, I see what you meant now. The robustness/deletion argument is
still much better IMO.

 > The best outcome is to have a *robust* and *clear* canonicalization.

Well, both seem equally clear to me. I see you robustness argument
too, but I guess we'll see what others have to say in a bit.
(I'm offline from now 'till tomorrow:-)

S.