IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dcrup] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8463 (7930)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 09 May 2024 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7799C14CEFD for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UveUc3y6aH1t for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D24AC14F694 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id F19D933CD1; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240509203958.F19D933CD1@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 13:39:58 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: UA4TSJCOAZ53BIZ3WLGTP764O6D3XJMQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: UA4TSJCOAZ53BIZ3WLGTP764O6D3XJMQ
X-MailFrom: wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dcrup.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: steffen@sdaoden.eu, standards@taugh.com, dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Dcrup] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8463 (7930)
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/lPOyS4Bcm_22C8fV9fvc7twDE1g>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dcrup-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dcrup-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dcrup-leave@ietf.org>

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8463,
"A New Cryptographic Signature Method for DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7930

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu>

Section: A.3

Original Text
-------------
It is about the DKIM signature, baby, it is

/gCrinpcQOoIfuHNQIbq4pgh9kyIK3AQUdt9OdqQehSwhEIug4D11BusFa3bT3FY5OsU7ZbnKELq+eXdp1Q1Dw==

(even though this pastes terribly in this HTML)

Corrected Text
--------------
The signature should be

QGeDV9CRdXSybek0z54GoycZ4/kl1PsNnGoOsCZ0ZOOwiGYFE8Ft0SZpy1XLW/fwlwNFC1k6VaxsnQAH8+9cAA==

Notes
-----
On the DKIM list i wrote

>I come here because alongside the above i had a look at RFC 8463
>again, and its example in "A.3.  Signed Message".
>And if i use its "A.1.  Secret Keys", and (manually) normalize the
>example message header of A.3 via "relaxed"
[.]
>and pass that through RFC 8032 code:

>  privkey: b'nWGxne/9WmC6hEr0kuwsxERJxWl7MmkZcDusAxyuf2A=\n'
>  pubkey : b'11qYAYKxCrfVS/7TyWQHOg7hcvPapiMlrwIaaPcHURo=\n'
>  The message is:
>  >>>b'from:Joe SixPack <joe@football.example.com>\r\nto:Suzie Q <suzie@shopping.example.net>\r\nsubject:Is dinner ready?\r\ndate:Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT)\r\nmessage-id:<20030712040037.46341.5F8J@football.example.com>\r\ndkim-signature:v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=football.example.com; i=@football.example.com; q=dns/txt; s=brisbane; t=1528637909; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : from : subject : date; bh=2jUSOH9NhtVGCQWNr9BrIAPreKQjO6Sn7XIkfJVOzv8=; b='<<<
>
>then i get
>
>  Signature: b'QGeDV9CRdXSybek0z54GoycZ4/kl1PsNnGoOsCZ0ZOOwiGYFE8Ft0SZpy1XLW/fwlwNFC1k6VaxsnQAH8+9cAA==\n'
>  Signature verifies: True

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC8463 (draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-14)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A New Cryptographic Signature Method for DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
Publication Date    : September 2018
Author(s)           : J. Levine
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : DKIM Crypto Update
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status