ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-03 submitted

2011-02-22 06:54:35
On 22/Feb/11 00:31, Douglas Otis wrote:
Any message containing multiple orig-date, from, sender, reply-to,
to, cc, message-id, in-reply-to, and subject header fields will not
produce a valid signature.  See Section 5.3.

The current Section 5.3 says:

   Therefore, a verifier SHOULD NOT validate a message that is not
   compliant with [RFC5322, RFC2045 and RFC2047] specifications.

IMHO, it is somewhat vague.  That SHOULD-NOT could be "promoted" to a
MUST-NOT for a finite number of specific features --to be explicitly
listed for readers' convenience.  Since it is a verifier's action,
this consideration should perhaps be moved somewhere toward the end of
Section 6.  Anyway, it is vital to keep such issues related to
5322-semantics clearly separated from crypto-mechanical
signature-validity specifications.  Collecting them into their own
section(s) may ease a future split.

BTW, Section 5.3 has some other paragraphs on 7-bit encoding that may
deserve revisions, also in view of EAI.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html