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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 08 February 2018 19:26 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 3EC7612706D for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:26:36 -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 (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 PvT7hbdsRm3K for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:26:34 -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 3C544124BE8 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:26:34 -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 w18JPrcK013504; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:25:54 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=L1kQQGD2; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-yw0-f177.google.com (mail-yw0-f177.google.com [209.85.161.177]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18JPn2j013490 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:25:50 -0800
Received: by mail-yw0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x24so3435244ywj.0 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:24:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=52NT6g7tscTm7WZuNN3eEzzSsC6bfwqriEvPGUkbKDQ=; b=L1kQQGD2hZo6arGYDVe5PxKiBn3HqfdcQtddmGKFNsoGJc77L7m6rlQfug10X6UlMw l7cl0FNg4lpkaplobNHcpzvFZmpHOP5sDf0H38R9FK91SLAblP3OoiKjS1330WkozLkz 0AzO4W3MzXLATmPqftFKcdD5khCtEbUSV0IqdKtEU79V5+62c5MOhrWrTtmQmeg9xNbw h56pbZL8kbfht1yfFzFUY+6D8oL02cfshFz/8FkVsEhf/sPX7Q+WANo8Oau3Qt2hgW3Q 6d3AGn5jRca69179dqg5nZWSgdtPDEBA4MYx4KWqxxtBO2UuABWHQ1U6qSLplWYUIZLI mzzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=52NT6g7tscTm7WZuNN3eEzzSsC6bfwqriEvPGUkbKDQ=; b=Qwcz1U40sY0ZD311YxdmUAEKIDDo31hBuNs/cM0hs92rRrzr7CfHAdG7Xf5eftN9uJ PIQbgLT/3C1C01ls7n9o+SVR7lBkOBe2XZejg3AcvGDf//G0j5OC3BUQLDZGFM5OenVm WH8VoD2uF+/Sg4MsoaD0jw7AMJ7kcYjwDT6DaWhHcofUHNcFx8C6mVQJA6YGfIf2DaDZ XiaMAemra6W3+vcWT+TFPU3qBQkGC/gT6sw9Gu/KHM7I/mJ0OCE7vzJp6G+TUoOJwn2g AwzHAX/QS8K+xid/E3FLfPw8r6WfgqkQeH8t/E1LkLUgFggrmFtNGAs8UPJPjE/3j1NQ 8yJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBbqlhbAF2SqzZ3Hv4IZVsykOsPeG7CwotN4ACdexQHNG9iDidZ w3mQPfntOsFHobi1/ndX2o7U9EBKKBMszpxBXD8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225+Zdt9A4nxuJLH21MV8NyUzJpomcsnl9axbL82B2YefP6rT2XGOxG2FNWtFHJD4kCAekEcYTEoo4xurqbXECs=
X-Received: by 10.37.97.149 with SMTP id v143mr90611ybb.15.1518117886441; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:24:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.171.2 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:24:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8fd9da93-5b61-14b4-aceb-e669765de636@bbiw.net>
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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:24:45 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KpQXJEfI7A2EJ_HUu_XncdB_deI
Message-ID: <CALaySJLF0hV5x8OxqXOWyGH20Ez+1jS6UZ2U=pLzmF2-=pQ5Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, DKIM Mailing List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>, tony+dkimov@maillennium.att.com, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, msk@cloudmark.com, 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>

I believe the right solution to this, consistent with the intent of
how email header fields work, is to add a sentence (via errata) to RFC
5322 section 2.2 or section 3.6 -- or both -- somewhat like this:

OLD

   Header fields are lines beginning with a field name, followed by a
   colon (":"), followed by a field body, and terminated by CRLF.  A
   field name MUST be composed of printable US-ASCII characters (i.e.,
   characters that have values between 33 and 126, inclusive), except
   colon.

NEW

   Header fields are lines beginning with a field name, followed by a
   colon (":"), followed by a field body, and terminated by CRLF.  A
   field name MUST be composed of printable US-ASCII characters (i.e.,
   characters that have values between 33 and 126, inclusive), except
   colon.  In all cases, field names are interpreted as case-insensitive
   strings, so that, for example, "Subject", "SUBJECT", and "SuBjEcT"
   are considered to be the same field name.

END

Barry

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> 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
>                                           ;  ":".
>
> 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