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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Thu, 08 February 2018 18:25 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 B7DF212D838 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:25:02 -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 (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=jQBa/VDX; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=nZXkcnU8
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 LNOftgzDgSQw for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:25:01 -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 3DEDF12D831 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:25:01 -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 w18IODwK009392; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:24:14 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518114258; bh=D/HyO67N50CEYM+YpPOTnFcAlEJKYNo84FQhP44GPUM=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=jQBa/VDXFDUgBdmrEhBxQO6kdhhkoDKIjFAZvA7Udns2bmeKODGDwmQ27feDfJ5Md E4x8xUUkKz+z7qwp5ZsRovmxfSjBYp9Qu+/p35sTFc5ptWVoWZwFNGWqg67D/s/Ezm 4eIrGXCcjfSPovrkQDRee4BVNLRWaiqxzZv7vGIM=
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 w18IOBA5009384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:24:11 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518114252; bh=Fq1YLvQ2WkSgBmoixuQO5QHjPcjgBzK+ge6RgqMr8JY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nZXkcnU81rmQlXBeK670vqXYIBR8msbx+B/9V3GyLA8NubxSOyAwJpj+dCF9z4fEL A2R429Q3eN6peqO37sJ9YCq7cn6KpkvwaY8dcqthrQpdj35ocNNM+AEKjPGDb69r3V evEOhI5ymhsYVYw7nvzwbGJZDJToaJ0IN6QBjdU0=
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <20180208170511.8FD3AB81BBF@rfc-editor.org> <9ccd7f72-df63-7569-2002-cce3aace7c08@bbiw.net> <D70D08E2-804E-44A7-9936-08BA501241D1@qti.qualcomm.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <8fd9da93-5b61-14b4-aceb-e669765de636@bbiw.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:23:09 -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: <D70D08E2-804E-44A7-9936-08BA501241D1@qti.qualcomm.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: ekr@rtfm.com, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, tony+dkimov@maillennium.att.com, vesely@tana.it, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, msk@cloudmark.com, barryleiba@computer.org, 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-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 10:05 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 
> RFC 7405 is also useful along these lines.

If those modifications are used, sure.  If not, not so much.


> So, no error in 5322. As for the erratum below, not having ABNF for the 
> header field does seem like a miss, though I'm not sure it should be 
> marked as more than "Hold for document update".

Consider:

1. RFC 5322 specifies ABNF for field names that is in terms of 'allowed' 
characters, but has no text constraining the method of defining the 
specific characters for specific header-field names.

2. Section 1.2.2 notes that "..." is case insensitive, but that the %... 
is inflexible (ie, sensitive.)

3. Nothing in the definition of optional-field requires using the "..." 
construct to define the header field name.  It merely defines what range 
of characteris allowed in a field-name.

    fields          =   *(trace
                   ...
                        optional-field)

    optional-field  =   field-name ":" unstructured CRLF

    field-name      =   1*ftext

    ftext           =   %d33-57 /          ; Printable US-ASCII
                        %d59-126           ;  characters not including
                                           ;  ":".

4. If a spec defines a field-name using the %... construct, it has 
effectively required case sensitivity in processing the field-name.

5. That was most certainly /not/ what was 'intended' for field-name 
parsing, going at least back to RFC 733. Violation of 'intent' is the 
criterion for an RFC erratum.

d/

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