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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 10 February 2018 09:40 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 B50A9128C0A for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:40:45 -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 (body 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 mh-vaGTweome for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:40:44 -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 479F81200E5 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:40:44 -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 w1A9dVio012959; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:39:32 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=tana.it header.i=@tana.it header.b=AuPQx/YA; 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 w1A9dRuF012955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:39:29 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1518255508; bh=kKHydpFA1rcBKjDXHibOSWAKsxNiXi5veXedAcJM0hM=; l=632; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AuPQx/YAYRc9zLsSvTc7RaSU16Va5OzmIrSpJbJ7V4K3g3Eq0ZeSVLls1HBoriddf 1ky/foqYuIeUqRGHmV0+vHG0/h2tuaffSiawrewbCArF/W8oNiSR2ErUvPcpq82p6R KX5op+/ScEYjGtMf3evpkPB3f5GlKJ91P5Zu6gp0=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.109] ([172.25.197.109]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:38:28 +0100 id 00000000005DC0C4.000000005A7EBD94.00004B50
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802091731220.56915@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <a3f010b0-ae60-00d6-72bf-22457bfa5f61@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:38:28 +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: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802091731220.56915@ary.qy>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, 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-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 Fri 09/Feb/2018 23:31:41 +0100 John R. Levine wrote:
> 
> The DKIM v=2 hack I proposed is a lot like SMTP extensions in that if
> your signature doesn't need the new semantics, don't ask for them, so
> you should sign with v=1, so the old and new will coexist forever.
> Since they can easily be handled by the same signing and verifying
> libraries, that's not a problem.

Assuming that that hack would have been way more befitting than any other idea
discussed on dmarc-ietf ever since, one may wonder how much of its fading away
was due to its version bumping instead of, say, introducing a new header field.

Ale

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