On 5/17/2011 1:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> Shouldn't it say >> >> More formally, pseudo-code for the signature algorithm is: body-hash = >> hash-alg (canon-body limited by l-param) data-hash = hash-alg >> (h-headers, D-SIG with body-hash) signature = sig-alg (d-domain, >> selector, data-hash) >> >> where: >> >> body-hash: is the output from hashing the body, using hash-alg. It is set >> as the value of the bh= tag in D-SIG for computing the data-hash. > > I think this should be limited only to change "content-hash" to "body-hash" > in the "data-hash" line, which is correct.
Right. This was my error. the 'content' string was a carry-over from my attempt to define DKIM in terms of Doseta. I tried to do string replacements but missed this one. > 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. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html