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

[Hector Santos]

Michael Thomas wrote:

> 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.

What you experienced with the "Alpha Code" out there is normal. Whatever 
the final outcome, at the end of the day, the official RFC is whats 
important here and those experiences, insights, etc, needs to be 
transcribed in the technical specs for the reasons you stated - the NEXT 
GUY should not have to be dealing with these protocol design questions.

---
HLS