Re: [Dcrup] I-D draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-06

[Jeremy Harris <[e-mail]>]

On 22/11/17 04:35, John Levine wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>> On 21/11/17 22:03, John Levine wrote:
>>> Keeping in mind that you're responding to a message I wrote two months ago ...
>>>
>>> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>>> Wouldn't it be more aesthetically pleasing to decouple, for dkim
>>>> a=ed25519-sha256 signing, the hash used for the body (sha256 as
>>>> specified by the 'a' tag) from the hash used for signing headers
>>>> (sha512, I think, but whatever the libraries have tied to
>>>> Ed25519 signing)?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> I think you need to further support your position.
> 
> You might want to review some of the 100 messages posted to this list
> since the one you were responding to.

> PS: look for the ones about many libraries don't plan to provide the
> pure version of ed25519, and how we agreed to deal with that.

I already did.  All assumed immediately the re-hash, once it was
accepted that we had no chance of the libraries providing a pure
signing facility.  I didn't see one that suggested that the headers
be passed in original unhashed form to the library hash-and-sign.

Is your position "it's too late, we already decided"?  You
final sentence above implies that, but perhaps I misread you.
-- 
Cheers,
  Jeremy