Re: cleartext signatures - trailing white space - proposal

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:36:57AM -0800, Jon Callas wrote:

> 5.2.1 is made more explicit thus:
> 
>    0x01: Signature of a canonical text document.
>        This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it
>        has not been modified.  The signature is calculated over the
>        text data with its line endings converted to <CR><LF> and
>        trailing spaces (0x020) and tabs (0x09) removed.

There is a definite reason why whitespace removal is needed for
cleartext signatures, but is there any need for any trailing
whitespace removal for 0x01 signatures (where the huge majority of the
time the file is protected inside a literal packet)?  I do like the
consistency of it.

> In 7.1, the confusing and arguably (I have argued this) silly text
> 
>    Also, any trailing whitespace (spaces, and tabs, 0x09) at the end of
>    any line is ignored when the cleartext signature is calculated.
> 
> is changed to
> 
>    Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x020) and tabs (0x09) --
>    at the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is
>    generated.

How about:

    Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20), tabs (0x09),
    carriage returns (0x0D) and linefeeds (0x0A) -- at the end of any
    line is removed when the cleartext signature is generated.

This matches what Werner and Ian proposed a few days ago.  I agree
that it is better to include CR and LF in the list.

David