Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Murray, Tony, or someone else: Can you independently check that these
examples need the extra space in order to be verified correctly?

Assuming they do, this errata report should be marked "Verified", but
the type should be changed to "Editorial", not "Technical".

Barry


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:17 AM, RFC Errata System
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6376,
> "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6376&eid=4926
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Simon Ser <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: A.2, A.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=brisbane; d=example.com;
>      c=simple/simple; q=dns/txt; i=[e-mail];
>      h=Received : From : To : Subject : Date : Message-ID;
>      bh=2jUSOH9NhtVGCQWNr9BrIAPreKQjO6Sn7XIkfJVOzv8=;
>      b=AuUoFEfDxTDkHlLXSZEpZj79LICEps6eda7W3deTVFOk4yAUoqOB
>      4nujc7YopdG5dWLSdNg6xNAZpOPr+kHxt1IrE+NahM6L/LbvaHut
>      KVdkLLkpVaVVQPzeRDI009SO2Il5Lu7rDNH6mZckBdrIx0orEtZV
>      4bmp/YzhwvcubU4=;
> Received: from client1.football.example.com  [192.0.2.1]
>      by submitserver.example.com with SUBMISSION;
>      Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joe SixPack <[e-mail]>
> To: Suzie Q <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Is dinner ready?
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=brisbane; d=example.com;
>       c=simple/simple; q=dns/txt; i=[e-mail];
>       h=Received : From : To : Subject : Date : Message-ID;
>       bh=2jUSOH9NhtVGCQWNr9BrIAPreKQjO6Sn7XIkfJVOzv8=;
>       b=AuUoFEfDxTDkHlLXSZEpZj79LICEps6eda7W3deTVFOk4yAUoqOB
>       4nujc7YopdG5dWLSdNg6xNAZpOPr+kHxt1IrE+NahM6L/LbvaHut
>       KVdkLLkpVaVVQPzeRDI009SO2Il5Lu7rDNH6mZckBdrIx0orEtZV
>       4bmp/YzhwvcubU4=;
> Received: from client1.football.example.com  [192.0.2.1]
>       by submitserver.example.com with SUBMISSION;
>       Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joe SixPack <[e-mail]>
> To: Suzie Q <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Is dinner ready?
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>
> Notes
> -----
> The "simple" header canonicalization doesn't change the header fields in any way.
>
> Folded header fields are missing one space of indentation (they have 5 spaces instead of 6), which makes the verification fail. Note that the plain text version of the RFC adds a prefix of three spaces before each line of text, which must be ignored.
>
> In section A.3, the indentation is changed again (5 spaces instead of 6 + the "b=" tag has 2 additional spaces of indentation).
>
> Test cases:
> - opendkim: https://github.com/cyrusimap/opendkim/blob/ab2934e131cbe670b49f11db9daf8cd1223e3839/libopendkim/tests/t-testdata.h#L74
> - go-dkim: https://github.com/emersion/go-dkim/blob/master/verify_test.go#L9
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6376 (draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-15)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
> Publication Date    : September 2011
> Author(s)           : D. Crocker, Ed., T. Hansen, Ed., M. Kucherawy, Ed.
> Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
> Source              : Domain Keys Identified Mail
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html