On 10/20/2013 06:35 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > 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?
Hmm, my implementation (the first) has it as DKIM1. That says that it's been that way for a long time. Iirc, DK didn't have a version tag. I wouldn't count on any sort of consistency here -- what it does say is that it's most likely not being enforced though. Mike > > 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 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
