> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:02 AM > To: IETF DKIM WG > Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM errata 1532 and 1596 > > ----------- 1532 > What Tony says is not consistent with the WG consensus, which was NOT > to REQUIRE the presence of "v=DKIM1", and the text (Tony's "N/A" > notwithstanding) makes it clear that the absence of v= is interpreted > as "v=DKIM1". > > He's correct, though, that the intent was for the DKIM key record to > be backward compatible with DK (RFC 4870, Historical), but that the g= > tag screws that up. Perhaps what would be correct to say is this, > added after the g= paragraph and before its ABNF: > > Exception: if "g=" is specified with an empty value AND there is NO > "v=" > specified at all, implementations MAY interpret this in the context > of > DomainKeys [RFC4870], treating it as DKIM's "g=*".
I like this compromise. > ----------- 1596 > 1596 is trickier and more involved. I think there's too much there to > make it "Verified" as is, and, while it's clear that Tony's right > about clarifying this point, it's not clear that it's been a real > problem for implementations. I think we need more comment from Tony > about it, and then have a brief discussion in the working group. I concur that there's an ambiguity, but I also agree that it's not urgent. My vote would be to construct the grammar or include remarks such that the actual value of "b=", or of any tag's value really, starts at the first character after "=" and ends at the first ";" or end-of-string, but with all unquoted unescaped whitespace removed. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
