This one's right, of course: no one uses "v=DKIM1"; it's always "v=1".
Authors, was this just left in from the "transition from DK" days?
Barry
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:01 AM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org> wrote:
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=3758
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Majid Tajamolian & Nazilla Karkon <mjdtjm(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Section: 3.6.1.
Original Text
-------------
v= Version of the DKIM key record (plain-text; RECOMMENDED, default
is "DKIM1"). If specified, this tag MUST be set to "DKIM1"
(without the quotes). This tag MUST be the first tag in the
record. Records beginning with a "v=" tag with any other value
MUST be discarded. Note that Verifiers must do a string
comparison on this value; for example, "DKIM1" is not the same as
"DKIM1.0".
Corrected Text
--------------
v= Version of the DKIM key record (plain-text; RECOMMENDED, default
is "1"). If specified, this tag MUST be set to "1"
(without the quotes). This tag MUST be the first tag in the
record. Records beginning with a "v=" tag with any other value
MUST be discarded. Note that Verifiers must do a string
comparison on this value; for example, "1" is not the same as
"1.0".
Notes
-----
The "DKIM" prefix in the version field is unnecessary.
for example the followings are snipped from an actual email via gmail.com:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
bh=46j07/8gDec8jTto/znsrAKiXDj6YJ7Wa2DCoZuhwXc=;
b=h6SViP6DcHgPwydJD6aztqyKd0UmCN3SdwmqZd0uCHmqrprphjN8qQ8AnBDhbwDhAa
DfHIDS8RSegELKtzsp95u+DnIFg1uNhIukKVpGT+9MqxfCSAFk7WpMe2O/2gcLruilTe
MxkKJ29s64NGevYewKtI8s73xHmbzD1NFH9ugdow8i9E16kgQ+vAx56qvbFTBwdEEw8I
6Bteu3tXEsYYbU/9Akm2GXS+6PFiDSbv47u3EmhRQIOK3e8DvcobrpicjL7vUwBCpQuf
J/c+Acdq4GZQoMoG9imzku0K2o0w33CZ1xUR1bARJKCVaJfWeHiEMQ2OJ9A6ZtqpyK0z
1Ftg==
Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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 (IESG)
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