RFC 4871, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", May 2007

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 6376

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5672

Errata ID: 1376
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tony Hansen
Date Reported: 2008-03-21
Verifier Name: Pasi Eronen
Date Verified: 2009-05-14

Section 3.4.3/.4 says:

section 3.4.3 & section 3.4.4

It should say:

Add to end of section 3.4.3:

   The sha1 value (in base64) for an empty body (canonicalized to a "CRLF") is "uoq1oCgLlTqpdDX/iUbLy7J1Wic=".
   The sha256 value is "frcCV1k9oG9oKj3dpUqdJg1PxRT2RSN/XKdLCPjaYaY=".

Add to end of section 3.4.4:

   The sha1 value (in base64) for an empty body (canonicalized to a null input) is "2jmj7l5rSw0yVb/vlWAYkK/YBwk=".
   The sha256 value is "47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=".

Notes:

From the October 2008 interop event:

Empty message bodies
• the “simple” body canonicalization says precisely what to do in the case of an empty message body
• “relaxed” does not
• Consensus is that the “relaxed” body canonicalization of the null body is the null input
• Majority felt it was conspicuous that “simple” was explicit while “relaxed” was not
• Errata: add clarification statement on expected values for relaxed

Report New Errata