No, wait: the reporter is confused, both about this errata report and
the companion one (h= vs a=).
Majid & Nazilla: You are looking at the section related to the key
records in DNS, and reading it as though it were about the signature
header in the message.
It's true that "v=1" is correct in the signature, and that in the
signature "h=" lists headers that are covered by the signature. But
in the key record in dns, it's different, and RFC 6376 is correct.
Barry
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
(Resending with Murray's new address.)
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