> On 7 Sep 2026, at 16:40, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > It appears that Bron Gondwana <[email protected]> said: >> -=-=-=-=-=- >> >> You haven't said anything new here. The key point of disagreement is that >> you come down on the JSON is too complex side of a tradeoff: >> >> A) encoding the entire allowable space of email addresses in a key-value >> format would require escapes in any key-value format. >> B) JSON is more complex, but already has clearly defined escapes, and >> base64+json allows us structure without having to invent a new format. >> >> The authors of the existing DKIM2 spec believe that the benefits of a >> pre-existing structure in JSON outweight the risks. You disagree. At some >> point we may need a >> consensus call from the chairs on this technical choice if we can't get an >> agreement. > > I haven't seen any other pushback about base64 JSON, notably not from people > doing > implementations. Encoding or decoding it is two nested library calls and > honestly, > if we have malware in our base64 or JSON libraries, we have way worse problems > than DKIM2.
It’s slightly annoying to implement as a strongly typed implementation because of the oneOf in the schema - it isn’t necessarily just a library call. It still beats trying to get everything correctly escaped by hand in some ad-hoc format. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
