[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Errata for RFC4871

2008-09-30 11:34:42
Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
As was noted in the DKIM meeting, there are currently 12 reported
errata for RFC 4871:

Couple of questions:

Errata ID 1383: I found some old emails (April 2008) suggesting that
the proposed change might be actually wrong (ABNF doesn't allow 
multiple wildcards in the string). If so, a new errata should be 

Pasi is correct here: the errata is wrong with respect to multiple

However, it would still be useful to add an example of foo*bar.

This was prompted by someone at the interop noting that some people had
not coded for the example of a * in the middle.

Errata ID 1378: This looks like a a technical change to text that's
relatively unambiguous ("REQUIRED").  I'm wondering what existing
implementations do here? If everyone includes the "a=" parameter, it
could be better to clarify Section 3.3 instead (removing the sentence
"..if no algorithm is specified").  And do existing implementations
assume the "a=" parameter is present?  (I don't have much information
either way -- but I guess the WG does.)

This could go either way. As the errata says, section 3.3 of 4871 says
that there's a default if a= is not specified, and section 3.5 says it's

As the Errata says: we need to pick one. Either 1) remove the sentence
from section 3.3, or 2) change "REQUIRED" to "OPTIONAL" in section 3.5.

I don't care which.

I'd like the WG to review all the errata. Once the WG chairs send
a list of errata IDs where there's rough WG consensus that the proposed 
changes are correct, and appropriate to do via the errata process, I'll 
send approval to the RFC editor.


        Tony Hansen

Best regards,

NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [ietf-dkim] Errata for RFC4871, Tony Hansen <=