Mark Martinec wrote:
> I don't think just dropping the errata works for me.
>
> The draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-11 says:
>
> If a DKIM verifier finds a selector record that has an empty "g"
> field ("g=;") and it does not have a "v" field ("v=DKIM1;") at its
> beginning, it is faced with deciding if this record was
>
> 1. from a DK signer that transitioned to supporting DKIM but forgot
> to remove the "g" field (so that it could be used by both DK and
> DKIM verifiers), or
>
> 2. from a DKIM signer that truly meant to use the empty "g" field
> but forgot to put in the "v" field. It is advised that you
> treat
> such records using the first interpretation, and treat such
> records as if the signer did not have a "g" field in the record.
>
>
> For this to work, it requires one to provide an explicit "v=DKIM1"
> when a empty "g=" is intentional. On the other hand, the RFC 4871
> clearly marks the v tag as entirely optional (yet recommended).
>
> While I agree that a recommendation on how a verifier should handle
> empty g tag does not belong into RFC 4871 (but only in dkim-
> deployment), I think that a 4871 section 3.6.1 on tag g (or v)
> should require that a 'v' is mandated if an empty granularity 'g='
> is (intentionally) used.
>
> Without this requirement, the dkim-deployment guesswork has no firm
> grounds to work on.
I see your point... however, the current errata text does *not*
mandate (or recommend) including 'v=' with an empty 'g='.
Perhaps something like this?
The format of the DNS key record was intentionally meant to be
backward compatible between DKIM and DomainKeys. However, DKIM and
DomainKeys treat an empty "g=" tag ("g=;") differently. To ease
transition from DomainKeys to DKIM, some DKIM verifiers may attempt
to use the DomainKeys interpretation if the "v=" tag is not present.
To ensure correct processing by the verifier, it is strongly
RECOMMENDED to include the "v=" tag when using an empty "g=" tag.
See draft-ietf-dkim-deployment, Appendix A.1 for more information.
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
