Mark Delany wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 02:29:26PM -0400, Barry Leiba allegedly wrote: >>> This paragraph is rather misleading because it implies to me that you must >>> convert to the canonical form for the *hash* function, not that you must >>> convert the message before forwarding. >> OK; if you can propose a rewrite to Eric that'll make the intended >> meaning clearer, I'm sure he'll appreciate that. > > What Mike was saying sounded pretty good. Along the lines of "must > produce rfc2822 conformant output as a consequence of signing" sounds > about right.
My last message passed yours in transit. I see one significant difference between them: This suggests that DKIM is "producing" the conformance. I think we should not say that. It is not DKIM's job to go around *changing* bodies, or the like. I think we do our part of the job merely by saying that a message handed to the DKIM signing component MUST be rfc 2822 compliant. (That we might add some informative text discussing the issue is a separate matter.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
