On 17/May/11 20:17, Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 5/17/2011 1:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> The remaining changes are inconsistent with the rest of the section or don't >> clarify anything. For example, the "hash-alg" function on the body-hash line >> takes the canonicalized body and the l-param as inputs, and produce the >> body-hash. Thus, that expression is correct as-is. > > Not merely inconsistent. The existing text specifies parameters to routines > that do internal processes. This is a standard form for specifying > interfaces. > > The proposed change tries to move some of the processing into the parameter, > and > hence is not an interface specification (unless, for example, the goal is to > tell the caller to truncate the body, rather than have the subroutine do the > truncating.
Yes, I put the remaining changes quickly and badly just to suggest that, IMHO, there is room for improvement. In particular, hash-alg looks like an overloaded function that can take two or three parameters, but its definitions are hard to spot. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
