> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:11 AM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Focusing on 4871bis
> 
> Synchronization check...
> 
> I'm not looking to discuss resolution of these items, but merely verify the
> current status of the items within the working group.
> 
> On 10/22/2010 8:28 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > 1. How to handle a key record with empty "g=" and absent "v="
> (section
> 
> I thought we had wg consensus to drop g=.

That is also my understanding.

> > 2. Advice about wildcards in TXT records.
> > Proposed change: Add a note in section 6.1.2 warning about the effect
> > of wildcard TXT records on finding DKIM key records.
> 
> This is what is in the pending -03 draft in section 6.1.2:
> 
>                        <t
>                          hangText="NOTE:"> The use of wildcard TXT
> records in the
>                          DNS will produce a response to a DKIM query
> that is
>                          unlikely to be valid DKIM key record. This
> problem
>                          applies to many other types of queries, and
> client
>                          software that processes DNS responses needs to
> take this
>                          problem into account.</t>

I haven't heard anything but support for adding that.

Nit: s/will/can/

> > 3. The issue of multiple occurrences of header fields that may only occur 
> > once.
> > Proposed change: Add text to section 5.3 recommending that verifiers
> > check that the message complies with specs, and that they not validate
> > a non-compliant message.  Add a new section 8.14 to the Security
> > Considerations, explaining the attacks that can be done using this
> > exposure.
> 
> Those are two different changes.  My own sense is that each has some
> controversy, with the first being pretty substantial and with the first having
> some significant counter-proposals.

Yes, that's my understanding as well.  (I think you meant "first... second" 
instead of "first... first".)

I'll start a counterproposal to Jim's text in a separate thread.


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to