This errata report (1) is editorial, not technical, and (2) should be
marked as "Held for Document Update".

Barry

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:32 AM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> 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=4875
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Emiel Bruijntjes <emiel.bruijnt...@copernica.com>
>
> Section: 3.5
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The header field text itself must encode the vertical bar
> ("|", %x7C) character (i.e., vertical bars in the "z=" text are
> meta-characters, and any actual vertical bar characters in a
> copied header field must be encoded).  Note that all whitespace
> must be encoded, including whitespace between the colon and the
> header field value.  After encoding, FWS MAY be added at arbitrary
> locations in order to avoid excessively long lines; such
> whitespace is NOT part of the value of the header field and MUST
> be removed before decoding.
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The header field value itself must encode the vertical bar
> ("|", %x7C) character (i.e., vertical bars in the "z=" text are
> meta-characters, and any actual vertical bar characters in a
> copied header field must be encoded).  Note that all whitespace
> must be encoded, including whitespace between the colon and the
> header field value.  After encoding, FWS MAY be added at arbitrary
> locations inside the header field value in order to avoid
> excessively long lines; such whitespace is NOT part of the value
> of the header field and MUST be removed before decoding. FWS MAY NOT
> be added to the header field name.
>
> Notes
> -----
> The original text is confusing on whether FWS may be added to just the header 
> field values or to both the header field names and header field values. The 
> ABNF suggests that it is just allowed inside the values, but we've seen in 
> practice that this whitespace is also added to the field names.
>
> Further more, the use of the three terms "header field name", "header field 
> value" and "header field text" is confusing. It is better to stick with just 
> "header field name" and "header field value".
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum 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
> 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

Reply via email to