On 5/23/2011 10:26 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > If one were to encode somehow an extension indication that "this content was > subjected to 8-to-7 downgrade" as a hint that a verifier should do the > reverse before verifying, the verifier would have to manage to undo the > downgrade in precisely, i.e. byte-for-byte, the same manner that the > downgrade was done for it to work. That's a pretty high requirement for > interoperability (i.e., it's pretty error-prone), so it requires a > specification and it would need to be consistent with the MIME RFCs. > > So assuming it's a useful endeavour, it seems to me there's a lot of work to > be done here.
Let's make it be the right work. To make a canonicalization algorithm that is more robust -- such as having it based on canonical forms of data, independent of encoding -- makes some sense. Trying to create the ability to "reverse" changes strikes me as far to complex and fragile to be reasonable. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
