Thanks Tony,

If there are no objections, we'll forward these to Pasi to
take action (i.e. update the errata pages) in one week from
now,

Stephen.

Tony Hansen wrote:
> Here's a description of the errata conclusions that were made at today's
> meeting. If anyone disagrees, speak now.
> 
>       Tony Hansen
>       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Errata 1383   show g= example with * in middle
> 
>       Add to the example list for g= the example of "foo*bar":
> 
>       Section 3.6.1 should say:
> 
>       g= Granularity of the key (plain-text; OPTIONAL, default is
>       "*"). .... Wildcarding allows matching for addresses such as
>       "user+*", "*-offer" or "foo*bar". An empty "g=" value never
>       matches any addresses.
> 
> Errata 1378   "a=" is required
> 
>       I was to check if the messages I captured at the interop last year if
> there were any that did not have a= in them. I still have 834 of the
> messages I received back then. *All of them have a= in them.* Given
> that, here is the conclusion:
> 
>       Section 3.3 should remove the sentence saying:
> 
>       The rsa-sha256 algorithm is the default if no algorithm is
>       specified.
> 
> Errata 1532   DomainKeys key record compatibility
> 
>       Add a section, probably after 6.1.3, with this text:
> 
>       6.1.4 Compatibility Note for DomainKeys
> 
>       The definition given here for the key record is upwardly
>       compatible with what is used for DomainKeys, with the exception
>       of the "g=" value. In DomainKeys, a key record empty "g=" value
>       is equivalent to "g=*", while DKIM treats that value as matching
>       nothing. The value "g=*" means the same in both DomainKeys and
>       DKIM.
> 
>       DomainKeys deployers are encouraged to at least switch their key
>       records to using the equivalent "g=*" value, which works
>       equivalently for both DomainKeys and DKIM.
> 
>       A DKIM implementation MAY choose to use the lack of a v= value
>       at the beginning of the key record as an indicator that the key
>       record is a DomainKeys key record, and interpret an empty "g="
>       value as if it were written "g=*".
> 
> Errata 1596   Ambiguity regarding whitespace and b= value
> 
>       Add text "(including all surrounding whitespace)" to the
>       description of deleting the b= value.
> 
>       3.7. Computing the Message Hashes
> 
>       2. The DKIM-Signature header field that exists (verifying) or
>       will be inserted (signing) in the message, with the value of the
>       "b=" tag (including all surrounding whitespace) deleted (i.e.,
>       treated as the empty string), canonicalized using the header
>       canonicalization algorithm specified in the "c=" tag, and
>       without a trailing CRLF.
> 
>       Fix the ambiguity in the base64string grammar to remove leading
>       and trailing FWS. Replace the existing base64 production with:
> 
>       ALPHADIGITPS = (ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/")
>       base64string = ALPHADIGITPS *([FWS] ALPHADIGITPS)
>                               [ [FWS] "=" [ [FWS] "=" ] ]
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> 
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to