raises a small question of needing notes to the editor advising hands off for such segments.
/d -- Dave Crocker bbiw.net -----Original Message----- From: Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> To: Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, "dcroc...@bbiw.net" <dcroc...@bbiw.net>, "tony+dki...@maillennium.att.com" <tony+dki...@maillennium.att.com>, "m...@cloudmark.com" <m...@cloudmark.com>, "stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie" <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>, "turn...@ieca.com" <turn...@ieca.com>, "john.hawth...@gmail.com" <john.hawth...@gmail.com>, "ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org" <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org> Sent: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (3192) FWIW, the error was introduced by the RFC Editor, who surely used double-space-between-sentences style, and didn't know that in that particular case, the space matters. And we didn't notice it in AUTH48 reviews. Something we need to remember to check for, in the rare cases where it does matter. Barry On Saturday, April 14, 2012, Barry Leiba wrote: > I've checked this, and it's correct. We copied the examples from 4871, > and made the editorial error of adding a space without changing the hash. > I'll mark it as Verified if i hear no objections soon. > > Barry > > On Saturday, April 14, 2012, RFC Errata System 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=3192 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: John Hawthorn <john.hawth...@gmail.com> >> >> Section: Appendix A >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> From: Joe SixPack <j...@football.example.com> >> To: Suzie Q <su...@shopping.example.net> >> Subject: Is dinner ready? >> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT) >> Message-ID: <20030712040037.46341.5...@football.example.com> >> >> Hi. >> >> We lost the game. Are you hungry yet? >> >> Joe. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> From: Joe SixPack <j...@football.example.com> >> To: Suzie Q <su...@shopping.example.net> >> Subject: Is dinner ready? >> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT) >> Message-ID: <20030712040037.46341.5...@football.example.com> >> >> Hi. >> >> We lost the game. Are you hungry yet? >> >> Joe. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> This text appears three times, in A.1., A.2., and A.3. >> Notice the double space after "game.", which renders the body hashes from >> A.2. and A.3. invalid. >> The corrected text is the same as that in RFC 4871. >> >> 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
