Re: [ietf-dkim] Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Thu, 08 February 2018 15:44 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 7A0651242F5 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:44:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbiw.net header.b=kqfMnKQq; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=V9WMtBdy
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 6mImQp3LAGJQ for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:44:16 -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 67F80126E64 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:44:16 -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 w18FhdX5030334; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:43:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518104623; bh=hhs/7HHVLgwiclAU8Rxk+TS4T5ddF19qXPeLHEnevQ8=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=kqfMnKQqhADSsyRQfUdyBYq6w0wqUj+KaO6moi8YNa8Er389sKrSpqozer97xX8rI iFaf3uK7XqrWcDdTLS5LjYVSbvbyMw+zFrheofCV+2ZHj/WfybZTpxXttBjY8FG6Ij fxGeTW4FALZuk3pXLO6MkAWWZbwaHOfltk61JS+w=
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18FhbHW030330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:43:38 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518104618; bh=6v1dq4MTIwhjDgD6D1XH1yTAeetZtwW5diilogA2mPE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=V9WMtBdyf/+DSK5ZebghqOG/PBwggVdY7EZl63Q3QSybuxaHoHviEdigTYy0Js4ON d8EJtqZhPawLxTUdFMJybQz4vQ//5wsgvwFMo4up+CuSrtukwmH2tCwIMzX0vAgA7m 5hDJI1LBsNRNtWZGO1zEme83TJmwVvT6eAs4+Mzk=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
References: <9e7d6a29-cbef-e032-4af9-eb5395071b4d@tana.it> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802080808160.51311@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <95c31903-5181-c6f8-11af-68d492418f46@bbiw.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:42:33 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802080808160.51311@ary.qy>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: DKIM List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?
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-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

On 2/8/2018 5:22 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name.  I 
>> looked
>> for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes.

Header field name rules are in RFC 5322.  That deals with case 
sensitivity for field name strings.  Section 1.2.2 provides the basis 
for knowing whether a defined string is to be parsed in a case sensitive 
or insensitive manner.


> I was going to say that can't possibly be true, but it's true, there's 
> no ABNF for the header.  So, for example, I don't know whether the v= 
> field has to come first.  Send an erratum, we'll probably accept it as 
> hold for update.

In RFC 6376, note Section 3.2 on tag lists.  The ABNF shows no 
sensitivity to ordering. (The linkage to DKIM-Signature is Section 3.5, 
first paragraph.)


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html