[ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR
dhc at dcrocker.net
Thu Mar 8 11:50:34 PST 2007
I actually believe the last sentence is important. The first sentence is a
warning about a generic construct. The second directs the reader to a
particular context -- which we already know can cause problems -- in which
that construct occurs.
Eric Allman wrote:
> I didn't include the last sentence at first, but it looked so ...
> naked. On the other hand, it does sort of say "people reading this spec
> should actually read it," which is indeed rather silly.
> I can go either way on it.
> --On March 8, 2007 2:31:41 PM -0500 Scott Kitterman
> <ietf-dkim at kitterman.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday 08 March 2007 14:07, Eric Allman wrote:
>>> I'm thinking of the following addition to the p= description in
>>> INFORMATIVE NOTE: A base64string is permitted to include white
>>> space (LWSP) at arbitrary places; however, any CRLFs must be
>>> followed by at least one WSP character. Implementors and
>>> administrators are cautioned to ensure that selector TXT records
>>> conform to this specification.
>> To the extent I understand the issue, I think this makes sense, but
>> I don't see value added in the last sentence since the whole point
>> of the spec is to be able to conform to it. I'd suggest deleting
>> the last sentence.
More information about the ietf-dkim