On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What I was suggesting was merely registering a new canonicalization > algorithm. Legacy DKIM implementations won't understand it. New ones > (presumably also modified to know about DMARC) will. > > The new canonicalization should have actual differences from the current > ones that are deemed worthy for general use. > > For example, how about 'very-relaxed' which is like relaxed but > eliminates all WSP from the calculation rather than just compressing it? > > The reason I don't like this approach -- assuming I am not missing something from this idea -- is because then we are, directly or not, tying verification semantics outside of DKIM to a canonicalization. In essence the change is to add this new canonicalization and at the same time teach verifiers that the token signature, in the absence of DKIM-Delegate and a passing Mediator signature, is to be ignored. I would much rather it be more explicit than that. Adding a new tag that introduces this is fully backward compatible with the installed base, and isn't piggybacked on a new header canonicalization that (as far as I know) we don't actually need. I'm happy to be corrected on that if there's actual data about it, of course. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
