> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 8:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-marf- > authfailure-report-03.txt > > > If it's included, it has to be complete or it's not useful. If > > "l=0" or the body is empty, DKIM-Canonicalized-Body (if included) > > must be the base64 encoding of a CRLF, because that's the > > canonicalized body in that instance. > > All right, I think the amount of guesswork is minimal (e.g. what if > l=1?) and the recipient should be prepared to "massage" the datum > anyway, according to what format was saved on signing, for comparison.
So you're saying DKIM-Canonicalized-Body should always be the complete body, and receivers of these reports should apply the truncation based on the "l=" found in the third MIME part? That seems a little convoluted to me. > > We can't reference the other drafts from this one as it'll be > > published first, unless there's some reason that they all need to > > go out together. > > There is also no reason why the drafts should be published > independently, since defining further failure types, e.g. VBR, will > need to redefine stuff in authfailure-report anyway. IMHO, we should > feel free to reference the drafts from one another if that improves > clarity. I disagree. This format is completely useful even if none of the reporting extensions drafts ever get published. The opposite is not true. That was one of the advantages of breaking the omnibus draft into these four or five smaller pieces. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
