[ietf-dkim] Errata for RFC4871
tony at att.com
Tue Sep 30 07:31:14 PDT 2008
Pasi.Eronen at nokia.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 at att.com
> Best regards,
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim