[ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
steve at wordtothewise.com
Mon Aug 3 09:58:55 PDT 2009
On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
>> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:34 PM
>> To: DKIM WG
>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
> Nice work! However:
>> If anyone has good (or known bad) records that it gets wrong I'm
>> interested to hear about it.
> It reports the contents of medusa3._domainkey.blackops.org as
> invalid which is not correct. That record contains an "r=" and an
> "rs=" tag, both of which are defined by active I-Ds. Those tags may
> be unknown to RFC4871, but that specification says such should
> merely be ignored; they don't render the record invalid.
For typical DKIM users though, commenting on an invalid field as "This
is probably invalid, but there might be an experimental I-D that's
using it, so maybe it's OK and receivers may or may not ignore it" is
going to be far more confusing than "This is wrong, fix it." - as if
they're using "r=" it's probably a typo or a misunderstanding, rather
than intentional use of an experimental field.
You're intentionally using non-standard or experimental fields - so
you know better than the mechanical validator, and that's OK.
(If we were to add a form on dkim.org that points to the checker, that
might be the place to discuss what it considers valid and what it
It might be interesting to have an alternate checker that tracks the
additional fields being discussed in active I-Ds too, though. Is there
a registry of experimental fields or list of I-Ds anywhere?
More information about the ietf-dkim