[ietf-dkim] DKIM errata 1532 and 1596
barryleiba.mailing.lists at gmail.com
Thu Jul 22 08:02:05 PDT 2010
There are two DKIM errata that we've still not dealt with, and we need
to sort them out and respond to them. They can be found here:
...and are numbers 1532 and 1596. Both were submitted by Tony -- so,
Tony, please review them and give us any further comments that'll help
us resolve them.
There are three applicable responses:
Verified: The item is correct, and it is important for those reading
RFC 4871 to pay attention to it.
Held for document update: The item is correct, but it is not
immediately critical, and may be incorporated in the next revision of
Rejected: The item is incorrect or unnecessary, or needs to be
considered as a significant working-group item in future.
My comments on the two:
What Tony says is not consistent with the WG consensus, which was NOT
to REQUIRE the presence of "v=DKIM1", and the text (Tony's "N/A"
notwithstanding) makes it clear that the absence of v= is interpreted
He's correct, though, that the intent was for the DKIM key record to
be backward compatible with DK (RFC 4870, Historical), but that the g=
tag screws that up. Perhaps what would be correct to say is this,
added after the g= paragraph and before its ABNF:
Exception: if "g=" is specified with an empty value AND there is NO "v="
specified at all, implementations MAY interpret this in the context of
DomainKeys [RFC4870], treating it as DKIM's "g=*".
1596 is trickier and more involved. I think there's too much there to
make it "Verified" as is, and, while it's clear that Tony's right
about clarifying this point, it's not clear that it's been a real
problem for implementations. I think we need more comment from Tony
about it, and then have a brief discussion in the working group.
I will probably add these to the agenda for Maastricht, but let's
start the discussion here, now.
Barry, as chair
More information about the ietf-dkim