On 07/02/17 15:33, Dave Crocker wrote:
G'day.
Looking for a community determination, here: The DKIM spec's examples
in A.2 and A.3 do not explicitly claim to be related to each other.
However they do contain the same message, so that assuming a
relationship seems pretty reasonable.
As such, calling the point raised in this Errata report an actual error
is certainly not silly. But I'm not sure it's correct, either.
Thoughts?
Seems to me to maybe match the "hold for document update"
classification.
S.
d/
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 07:17:12 -0800 (PST)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org>
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net,
tony+dkimov(_at_)maillennium(_dot_)att(_dot_)com,
msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com,
stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie,
Kathleen(_dot_)Moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com,
barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org
CC: simon(_dot_)ser(_at_)emersion(_dot_)fr, ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org,
text/plain(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org, charset=UTF-8(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6376,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6376&eid=4926
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Simon Ser <simon(_dot_)ser(_at_)emersion(_dot_)fr>
Section: A.2, A.3
Original Text
-------------
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=brisbane; d=example.com;
c=simple/simple; q=dns/txt; i=joe(_at_)football(_dot_)example(_dot_)com;
h=Received : From : To : Subject : Date : Message-ID;
bh=2jUSOH9NhtVGCQWNr9BrIAPreKQjO6Sn7XIkfJVOzv8=;
b=AuUoFEfDxTDkHlLXSZEpZj79LICEps6eda7W3deTVFOk4yAUoqOB
4nujc7YopdG5dWLSdNg6xNAZpOPr+kHxt1IrE+NahM6L/LbvaHut
KVdkLLkpVaVVQPzeRDI009SO2Il5Lu7rDNH6mZckBdrIx0orEtZV
4bmp/YzhwvcubU4=;
Received: from client1.football.example.com [192.0.2.1]
by submitserver.example.com with SUBMISSION;
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe SixPack <joe(_at_)football(_dot_)example(_dot_)com>
To: Suzie Q <suzie(_at_)shopping(_dot_)example(_dot_)net>
Subject: Is dinner ready?
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:
<20030712040037(_dot_)46341(_dot_)5F8J(_at_)football(_dot_)example(_dot_)com>
Corrected Text
--------------
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=brisbane; d=example.com;
c=simple/simple; q=dns/txt; i=joe(_at_)football(_dot_)example(_dot_)com;
h=Received : From : To : Subject : Date : Message-ID;
bh=2jUSOH9NhtVGCQWNr9BrIAPreKQjO6Sn7XIkfJVOzv8=;
b=AuUoFEfDxTDkHlLXSZEpZj79LICEps6eda7W3deTVFOk4yAUoqOB
4nujc7YopdG5dWLSdNg6xNAZpOPr+kHxt1IrE+NahM6L/LbvaHut
KVdkLLkpVaVVQPzeRDI009SO2Il5Lu7rDNH6mZckBdrIx0orEtZV
4bmp/YzhwvcubU4=;
Received: from client1.football.example.com [192.0.2.1]
by submitserver.example.com with SUBMISSION;
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe SixPack <joe(_at_)football(_dot_)example(_dot_)com>
To: Suzie Q <suzie(_at_)shopping(_dot_)example(_dot_)net>
Subject: Is dinner ready?
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:
<20030712040037(_dot_)46341(_dot_)5F8J(_at_)football(_dot_)example(_dot_)com>
Notes
-----
The "simple" header canonicalization doesn't change the header fields in
any way.
Folded header fields are missing one space of indentation (they have 5
spaces instead of 6), which makes the verification fail. Note that the
plain text version of the RFC adds a prefix of three spaces before each
line of text, which must be ignored.
In section A.3, the indentation is changed again (5 spaces instead of 6
+ the "b=" tag has 2 additional spaces of indentation).
Test cases:
- opendkim:
https://github.com/cyrusimap/opendkim/blob/ab2934e131cbe670b49f11db9daf8cd1223e3839/libopendkim/tests/t-testdata.h#L74
- go-dkim:
https://github.com/emersion/go-dkim/blob/master/verify_test.go#L9
Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to
change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC6376 (draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-15)
--------------------------------------
Title : DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
Publication Date : September 2011
Author(s) : D. Crocker, Ed., T. Hansen, Ed., M. Kucherawy, Ed.
Category : DRAFT STANDARD
Source : Domain Keys Identified Mail
Area : Security
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html