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

[Frank Ellermann]

Hector Santos wrote:

>> If your implementation treats "no body" like "empty body" and
>> other implementations don't we've to agree on one way to get
>> this right.  Or rather Eric has to describe it unambiguously.
 
> Doesn't both translate to a <CRLF> for the SIMPLE c14n?

I'd hope that they do this, a canonicalization should eliminate
this rather obscure difference.  But if Charles reads the spec.
in a way where that's apparently not the case, then maybe Eric
can find some better wording for this detail.  In AUTH48, this
is editorial and completely unrelated to Lisa's old DISCUSS.

Frank