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