This errata report (1) is editorial, not technical, and (2) should be
marked as "Held for Document Update".
Barry
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:32 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=4875
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Emiel Bruijntjes
<emiel(_dot_)bruijntjes(_at_)copernica(_dot_)com>
Section: 3.5
Original Text
-------------
The header field text itself must encode the vertical bar
("|", %x7C) character (i.e., vertical bars in the "z=" text are
meta-characters, and any actual vertical bar characters in a
copied header field must be encoded). Note that all whitespace
must be encoded, including whitespace between the colon and the
header field value. After encoding, FWS MAY be added at arbitrary
locations in order to avoid excessively long lines; such
whitespace is NOT part of the value of the header field and MUST
be removed before decoding.
Corrected Text
--------------
The header field value itself must encode the vertical bar
("|", %x7C) character (i.e., vertical bars in the "z=" text are
meta-characters, and any actual vertical bar characters in a
copied header field must be encoded). Note that all whitespace
must be encoded, including whitespace between the colon and the
header field value. After encoding, FWS MAY be added at arbitrary
locations inside the header field value in order to avoid
excessively long lines; such whitespace is NOT part of the value
of the header field and MUST be removed before decoding. FWS MAY NOT
be added to the header field name.
Notes
-----
The original text is confusing on whether FWS may be added to just the header
field values or to both the header field names and header field values. The
ABNF suggests that it is just allowed inside the values, but we've seen in
practice that this whitespace is also added to the field names.
Further more, the use of the three terms "header field name", "header field
value" and "header field text" is confusing. It is better to stick with just
"header field name" and "header field value".
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