[ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim

Tue Jan 9 08:04:31 PST 2007

At 11:23 AM +0000 1/9/07, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>I still, cannot see why one would want to canonicalize a genuinely 
>empty <body> intpo "CRLF", nor do some others on this list. I gather 
>that some implementations do not do so either, and neither did the 
>original DK, and many on the list thought they were standardizing 
>the DK behaviour.

It doesn't matter which direction a canonicalization goes, as long as 
it is completely clear what to do.

Is this horse dead yet? With Eric's proposed change, are there any 
open issues? Tony posted a somewhat-cryptic note yesterday; is that 
resolved?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council