This one's right, of course: no one uses "v=DKIM1"; it's always "v=1". Authors, was this just left in from the "transition from DK" days?
Barry On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:01 AM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> 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=3758 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Majid Tajamolian & Nazilla Karkon <[email protected]> > > Section: 3.6.1. > > Original Text > ------------- > v= Version of the DKIM key record (plain-text; RECOMMENDED, default > is "DKIM1"). If specified, this tag MUST be set to "DKIM1" > (without the quotes). This tag MUST be the first tag in the > record. Records beginning with a "v=" tag with any other value > MUST be discarded. Note that Verifiers must do a string > comparison on this value; for example, "DKIM1" is not the same as > "DKIM1.0". > > Corrected Text > -------------- > v= Version of the DKIM key record (plain-text; RECOMMENDED, default > is "1"). If specified, this tag MUST be set to "1" > (without the quotes). This tag MUST be the first tag in the > record. Records beginning with a "v=" tag with any other value > MUST be discarded. Note that Verifiers must do a string > comparison on this value; for example, "1" is not the same as > "1.0". > > Notes > ----- > The "DKIM" prefix in the version field is unnecessary. > for example the followings are snipped from an actual email via gmail.com: > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; > d=gmail.com; s=20120113; > h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; > bh=46j07/8gDec8jTto/znsrAKiXDj6YJ7Wa2DCoZuhwXc=; > b=h6SViP6DcHgPwydJD6aztqyKd0UmCN3SdwmqZd0uCHmqrprphjN8qQ8AnBDhbwDhAa > DfHIDS8RSegELKtzsp95u+DnIFg1uNhIukKVpGT+9MqxfCSAFk7WpMe2O/2gcLruilTe > MxkKJ29s64NGevYewKtI8s73xHmbzD1NFH9ugdow8i9E16kgQ+vAx56qvbFTBwdEEw8I > 6Bteu3tXEsYYbU/9Akm2GXS+6PFiDSbv47u3EmhRQIOK3e8DvcobrpicjL7vUwBCpQuf > J/c+Acdq4GZQoMoG9imzku0K2o0w33CZ1xUR1bARJKCVaJfWeHiEMQ2OJ9A6ZtqpyK0z > 1Ftg== > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata 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 (IESG) > 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
