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

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:


Michael Thomas wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
I don't think the "lateness" has anything to do with it since there 
are bugs in either direction and no one even noticed until recently. 
It can hardly be the case that it is breaking much to apply the fix.

Well, we have a deployment and changing this from the current sense 
would be
 breaking messages that would have otherwise survived. That is what I
recently discovered. Do you have evidence to the contrary with your DKIM
deployment?


Sorry, Mike, but that particular line of argument isn't applicable 
here.> Hence,
it was pure academic exercise.

Working group specs are subject to semantic change up to the point of 
IESG
approval. Anyone deploying code based on a spec prior to that moment 
is taking a
well-advertised risk.
Huh? I'm saying that changing this is *NOT* academic: there are things 
in the
real world which will cause more message signature to fail if we make this
change. You're not in favor of that are you?

I thought this was the entire point of running code: to find out how the 
spec
works in real life. If that's just an academic exercise, there's 
something seriously
wrong.

      Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html