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

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>>> 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.

No I was not. My code up until very recently was making the same mistake.
What is strongly implied in the current draft offers *superior* 
robustness in
the real world. That is, it is immune to additions *and* deletions of 
trailing
CRLF's. That is not an appeal to installed base, it's an appeal to a more
robust spec. As it happens, the spec merely needs to make more obvious
what the normative text already says and we will have an improved spec.

       Mike