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

[Hector Santos]

Eric Allman wrote:

> I've changed the text to read "If there is no body or no trailing CRLF 
> on the message body, a CRLF is added" in order to avoid any confusion.

Eric, this is good. I will comment that the only confusion is there is 
an indirect implication that the final two bytes of the FEED must have a 
<CRLF>.

Which is not true, right?

Because a) A signer can canonicalized the message, including adding a 
<CRLF> if necessary, that yields size X, but B) the signer decides to 
hash only L=N  bytes where N < X bytes.

That was the only "scratch head" thought I had about all this - The 
reason to add a <CRLF> if a signer was not going to hash the entire body.

So I guess, if anything, a statement, sentence or comment that states 
"the need to add a <CRLF> is only necessary if the entire body is going 
to be hashed."

---
HLS