IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6376 (5260)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 08 February 2018 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57DD126CF6 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:44:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X2EK6QhPfgjX for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FE9C12D838 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18JhCoZ014641; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:43:13 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=ivvjqNk0; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com (mail-yw0-f176.google.com [209.85.161.176]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18Jh8Nb014619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:43:09 -0800
Received: by mail-yw0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x62so3460540ywg.11 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:42:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=oHA2GICliOFceEvOZc2xYAWbMJjtb9C4jpGnkjpdqGo=; b=ivvjqNk0AdGHBVZ5Z7X7GOZCuygHHAnu3dZGt7K8GZD9HwjVvhemMudqZF+HXv38QU reQzY5iq4pI2p6ENvsMDBdMQwERSQ2f4eVgOzUb7NM79UxVp737s1wWcYX1c5U/qBXHU 5PX2aRWUM/vIkLvR4nEENkUx0RYvEq8DvX877DBN5fMPBDetWQ8B9UbXoyqYdCzuTp0D FyySKVjnSCSblWZXeV2iHKD9BwmU+1wepGPRn+OoH1ayd7+jBKROLMqag8jz4uM1y8Ao d9+O8TypYXVwZV9jX5BE973kiEZhW6KckMW2K4bxW12Irk0zR72lTvBGLkb5todqzMj1 HnYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oHA2GICliOFceEvOZc2xYAWbMJjtb9C4jpGnkjpdqGo=; b=FX2yzigKW2zco9Eqv9ah2/98Epn6DKT8ls9ljPNNJdOiD3HSErky20Uqwdp+0urw06 ESpMXP1d1A9FZZNLgiOxmcRnC2nf+aA7BQM0xp2ojldBu4IudgPpGGRyH40ox1XzVaJU omhSDsr2GWhZTQ6YsRvNCgLxZ5F4tmFx2EvOZv/1kVbXrQfoVNzimdoVHWsmz2hqLCiP dtg6+kvWonDXYaQG5AXCr3USILQBHszMIoLacAKSBIN2tYkqnvD2pvrJpVp/J6tO+RGe Hti1f3/N+Fp1kw68FR0thE0g1BRf9r5mDa8F2F9Yr4k+GNWEM3wNqVSn3G6eLksmnqtk VAVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCHKnhIu4szuDpGAzHQDuOOFhekK5ynISgr/nDCAjN4LBX6xtUi /DHVo1A8ncyQGxaGxC4CgJ9qDcjVodDXYXuz+xw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225By4zZJqVd+UZKSyIAZtLDMfwJNawCrww4XxGkXEseguMG5y6tWFkWzBvFHOiKn1n1Mo7SbbbO2G6C2WQhuRI=
X-Received: by 10.37.195.131 with SMTP id t125mr131382ybf.216.1518118926263; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:42:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.171.2 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:42:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <c50568ce-1f1d-b4f1-a3fe-9bd05f547b79@tana.it>
References: <20180208170511.8FD3AB81BBF@rfc-editor.org> <9ccd7f72-df63-7569-2002-cce3aace7c08@bbiw.net> <D70D08E2-804E-44A7-9936-08BA501241D1@qti.qualcomm.com> <8fd9da93-5b61-14b4-aceb-e669765de636@bbiw.net> <c50568ce-1f1d-b4f1-a3fe-9bd05f547b79@tana.it>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:42:05 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lBCmcsdrq2oMo3pe6-b1pzYT554
Message-ID: <CALaySJJcr7m5BzkyprsDL_a1oRKWtgdgk5yP0cLV9vxN3eWtbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, DKIM Mailing List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>, tony+dkimov@maillennium.att.com, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, msk@cloudmark.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6376 (5260)
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

> The question arose because someone had DKIM-Signature changed to Dkim-Signature
> by some (presumably DKIM-unaware) tool.  The user thought the culprit was my
> signing filter, and reported a bug.  I told him to look somewhere else.  I
> wanted to add that that change can be acceptable if canonicalization is
> relaxed, but I was unable to point him to a line that explicitly stated or
> implied case insensitivity.  I'd have to explain the intent maieutically,
> which, in a standard, seems to leave something to be desired...

I think it would be wrong to try to correct this in the DKIM spec:
It's not that DKIM is requiring that the header field name be
case-insensitive, but, rather, that email header field names are
case-insensitive.

Barry
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email