IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 14 February 2017 02:25 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 8EA78129498 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:25:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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=dcrocker.net header.b=Wjh/RKSB; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net header.b=UPQ/Tla1
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 ZBnjHFGtL7bN for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:25:04 -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 AE1A11293FF for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:25:04 -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 v1E2Psi4030390; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:25:55 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1487039157; bh=h7SeQbD3NgRrvjTcGL0ypSc6fj0WyP8jj119qFQU3qI=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=Wjh/RKSBoWQHTkK14tqF5UR+tGa3GYgWLJFbUeL1pYxMCJ3mij+Mem5zTj6rMduBm FYA3d3j9QpjlmiVjJD6rI0EdaU5hblXF70zoHq6uaoj9OYb1l7smiamJ2xbi9Rd2Ng urTpE34aJ/6HvhtZbHRQlbneBYWarGqYDfpAVesA=
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 v1E2Pp0d030386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:25:51 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1487039152; bh=vn1pHP1/L5UjEvYskkZa2DCYyVo+14QX5wBM1D+WsQ4=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UPQ/Tla17ucYli43IiGhphXl5DRFrgr54RIu2iL5jJLDvj4cTDIyuxby1/cDRscDm Ipgmt8LPTg3Ljb+uSJGW+HwkXLrmwGPZgaWuyYBUoBRrJDlg7G7aig/+C3hu3zatKQ 8kx8ULV+NVnJGcI5xgujeaWrqnfATbxJY7/hT8cA=
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CALaySJJ8QvWp=QChL9Pvt5ytySpeRnU1y4xaXAiRD9vi4M+oZg@mail.gmail.com> <20170207181909.9946.qmail@ary.lan> <CALaySJKWvg+92jSk25OvMR1J9vBqtsSgp+VUTw+KuYDY+zJS=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwatr10gmSVoV_xFDHAVp5QCBpg_=aF=EdmXk45ZdHbNpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBAKVYsPN5tO-hYPAuymA=ET_41ME+atyVQJuXi7pdpgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <74348b75-2597-e4cb-d569-7cc34d022f66@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:24:00 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBAKVYsPN5tO-hYPAuymA=ET_41ME+atyVQJuXi7pdpgw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: DKIM Mailing List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 2/13/2017 5:32 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Verified as Editorial is my preference.  Editorial because I don't
...
> If you decide to leave it as Technical, then we should definitely go


Since I raised some fuss about this choice, let me be clear that I meant 
the fuss only in academic terms.  I don't think the difference matters, 
in this case, in terms of IETF process or actions.

d/
-- 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email