Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6376 (5260)
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 08 February 2018 19:30 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 9541B12706D for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:30:49 -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=tana.it
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 RzB83Sbo79J6 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:30:48 -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 401F1126CF6 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:30:48 -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 w18JU96T013839; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:30:09 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=tana.it header.i=@tana.it header.b=ZAZ72Yml; dkim-adsp=unknown (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from wmail.tana.it (nobody@wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18JU28L013771 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:30:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1518118144; bh=rHMfq7eYSybKvtHToER2Zy9y6N6ArvtuBxfl/mPIBj4=; l=2668; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ZAZ72YmlN9vC2diSK9q2cZY0QZwBG5wsnqs487/TJZ9e/Elbga2he0n2NZMwQKcnQ fTjkds4gYRoGaQFEPQzpNLnEW+GpGBcHB5ZojfkBPomero+qp3+AZriO7Ofv4a0zSJ ljZXkVMMjpbhuBrh98bPNSX/Mn5SNPnx9WwSJqGU=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.109] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.109]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:29:04 +0100 id 00000000005DC02A.000000005A7CA500.00003468
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 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> <8fd9da93-5b61-14b4-aceb-e669765de636@bbiw.net>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <c50568ce-1f1d-b4f1-a3fe-9bd05f547b79@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:29:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8fd9da93-5b61-14b4-aceb-e669765de636@bbiw.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: ekr@rtfm.com, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, tony+dkimov@maillennium.att.com, 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-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>
On Thu 08/Feb/2018 19:23:09 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote: > 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 > ; ":". The above section is referenced by RFC 3868, which in turn is referenced by the IANA registry. So, a case sensitive header field name is technically possible. > 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. Isn't that the difference between technical and editorial errors? Since the intent is clear, I reported the error as editorial. 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... Ale _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Barry Leiba
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… Barry Leiba
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC63… John R. Levine