Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 05 March 2010 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A733A8F9B for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:15:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.286, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nYxCA3xgMUX0 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6CD3A8F99 for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so4154250fxm.29 for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:15:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vY9ybOAC5hmQqGu55xP3NPQ5/9k1y/ICa08or5eNEsQ=; b=Kmx9m1TjXD5yTkrnolzcaenJbpUrZBVW6vsRcu3elewMvX+CYcJOl+L5h2MifctddR 0Asy8m18rDmBaGdPg8ErKnWtS5RU7uJxJfc1lePN5TfY7t4J7kYfeNjrxPcm8VHPtJC2 L/lNBk6upAYfivo0tlT21Ztp0ZVCK9s8SClmc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=k/lu0Q4uYTncrbW2T67Vp0UEGrOO0873nLZzgCba8Zy4FZElaqHcx/cgTaQKUdFoRW eGOubP3tqjtzGwdQMmfICIfvXsX/UUoryRiDPc9qy043yPhTmvqf+d2IgrF2dFyXnnXl Yx7/lxjABOV+eDw4wJvcZYFVdST9d7gWlR5YY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.68.143 with SMTP id v15mr1100856fai.62.1267798532813; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:15:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01NKDOIR3JA200EMS2@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303103218.0ba092a0@resistor.net> <4B90ED1C.8040905@tana.it> <01NKDOIR3JA200EMS2@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:15:31 -0500
Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a1003050615p651de616if1fa35e8d5569d40@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: yam@ietf.org, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Subject: Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:15:44 -0000

>> RFC 4871 is of 2007 and reports an issue with it. Section 5.3
>> practically says that 8bit SHOULD NOT be used.
>
> It's hardly the 8bitMIME extension's fault that DKIM is misdesigned - It
> isn't at all difficult to define a signature mechanism capable of surviving
> encoding changes. The DKIM group simply chose not to do it, making a
> design tradeoff that severely limits DKIM's applicability.

Don't confuse what's sent on the wire with what's done in the
canonicalization.  DKIM doesn't prevent sending 8bitMIME... it just
says that it had better be canonicalized with RFC 2047 encoding when
you make (and verify) the signature.

Barry