Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4875)

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:29:25 -0500

This errata report (1) is editorial, not technical, and (2) should be
marked as "Held for Document Update".

Barry

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:32 AM, RFC Errata System
<[email-masked]> 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=4875
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Emiel Bruijntjes <[email-masked]>
>
> Section: 3.5
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The header field text itself must encode the vertical bar
> ("|", %x7C) character (i.e., vertical bars in the "z=" text are
> meta-characters, and any actual vertical bar characters in a
> copied header field must be encoded).  Note that all whitespace
> must be encoded, including whitespace between the colon and the
> header field value.  After encoding, FWS MAY be added at arbitrary
> locations in order to avoid excessively long lines; such
> whitespace is NOT part of the value of the header field and MUST
> be removed before decoding.
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The header field value itself must encode the vertical bar
> ("|", %x7C) character (i.e., vertical bars in the "z=" text are
> meta-characters, and any actual vertical bar characters in a
> copied header field must be encoded).  Note that all whitespace
> must be encoded, including whitespace between the colon and the
> header field value.  After encoding, FWS MAY be added at arbitrary
> locations inside the header field value in order to avoid
> excessively long lines; such whitespace is NOT part of the value
> of the header field and MUST be removed before decoding. FWS MAY NOT
> be added to the header field name.
>
> Notes
> -----
> The original text is confusing on whether FWS may be added to just the header field values or to both the header field names and header field values. The ABNF suggests that it is just allowed inside the values, but we've seen in practice that this whitespace is also added to the field names.
>
> Further more, the use of the three terms "header field name", "header field value" and "header field text" is confusing. It is better to stick with just "header field name" and "header field value".
>
> 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