No, wait: the reporter is confused, both about this errata report and the companion one (h= vs a=).
Majid & Nazilla: You are looking at the section related to the key records in DNS, and reading it as though it were about the signature header in the message. It's true that "v=1" is correct in the signature, and that in the signature "h=" lists headers that are covered by the signature. But in the key record in dns, it's different, and RFC 6376 is correct. Barry On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > (Resending with Murray's new address.) > > 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
