resnick has never even looked at it or expressed any interest at all in developing it then dives in

I've been reviewing 4871bis for the IESG review on Thursday. I've got a
huge number of comments. Some of them (e.g., the first two below) are
quite trivial or simple issues that I expect you'd either have no issue
with or that I'm happy to ignore; some of them are clearly not trivial
at all. I have not entered a ballot position yet, and I haven't sorted
through all of the comments to decide if any are worthy of entering a
DISCUSS, but I suspect that some of them are. I therefore wanted to post
this to the WG list so you all get an idea of what I'm thinking about.
Tomorrow I'll spend some time cleaning these up and sorting them by
category instead of by order of the document.

I apologize for the lateness of this review; it's probably something I
should have done a long time ago.

Comments:

1. I find the use of the word "INFORMATIVE" throughout the document
superfluous. No other word (e.g., NORMATIVE) is used in its place. I
think they should all be removed. They serve no purpose.

2. The ABNF "0*" construct is not normally used. Why not just "*"?

3. Section 2.7: I don't understand what the word "module" means in this
context. It sounds like some sort of specific implementation, not part
of a protocol. I don't know what it means to deliver values to a module.

4. Section 3.4.4:

INFORMATIVE NOTE: It should be noted that the relaxed body
canonicalization algorithm may enable certain types of extremely
crude "ASCII Art" attacks where a message may be conveyed by
adjusting the spacing between words. If this is a concern, the
"simple" body canonicalization algorithm should be used instead.

This is not an attack, or at the very least it is not an attack on DKIM.
You can play this same game with MIME encodings or other textual tricks.
I don't see any justification for this note being in this document.

5. Section 3.4.5:

INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: Using body length limits enables
an attack in which an attacker modifies a message to include
content that solely benefits the attacker. It is possible for the
appended content to completely replace the original content in the
end recipient's eyes, such as via alterations to the MIME
structure or exploiting lax HTML parsing in the MUA, and to defeat
duplicate message detection algorithms. To avoid this attack,
signers should be wary of using this tag, and verifiers might wish
to ignore the tag, perhaps based on other criteria.

I don't understand how this is an attack. If the signer said, "I'm
signing the first n bytes of the body of this message" and the verifier
is able to verify that the signature is valid for n bytes of the body,
the algorithm has succeeded. At most, this should lead to an admonition
that unsigned data is not verified and therefore should not be trusted,
but that seems obvious. There might be an attack on an MUA that does not
verify the DKIM signature, but that seems outside the scope of this
document.

6. Section 3.5:

v= Version (MUST be included). This tag defines the version of this
specification that applies to the signature record. It MUST have
the value "1". Note that verifiers must do a string comparison on
this value; for example, "1" is not the same as "1.0".

Why "string comparison" here? There's no case sensitivity to worry
about. There's no character encoding to worry about. Why not instead
say, "Note that verifiers must (MUST?) ensure that the value is '1'; for
exmaple '1' is not the same as '1.0'"? (Seem similar text in 3.6.1.) And
why is the value not listed as "plain-text"?

7. Section 3.5: It would be nice to subsection each tag here. (e.g.,
"v=" could be 3.5.1, etc.)

8. Section 3.5, "h=":

It would be nice to add a sentence similar to the one in 5.4: "The field
MAY contain multiple instances of a header field name; this means that
multiple occurrences of the header field are being signed by the signing
algorithm."

9. Section 3.5, "h=":

INFORMATIVE EXPLANATION: By "signing" header fields that do not
actually exist, a signer can allow a verifier to detect
insertion of those header fields after signing. However, since
a signer cannot possibly know what header fields might be
created in the future, and that some MUAs might present header
fields that are embedded inside a message (e.g., as a message/
rfc822 content type), the security of this solution is not
total.

a. I don't understand what MUAs presenting "header fields that are
embedded inside a message" has to do with anything.

b. I don't know what the words, "the security of this solution is not
total" are supposed to mean.

Don't you simply mean: "However, since a signer cannot possibly know
what header fields might be defined in the future, this mechanism can't
be used to prevent the addition of any possible unknown header fields."?

10. Section 3.5, "h=":

INFORMATIVE EXPLANATION: The exclusion of the header field name
and colon as well as the header field value for non-existent
header fields allows detection of an attacker that inserts an
actual header field with a null value.

I cannot parse that sentence. I have no idea what it means.

11. Section 3.5, "l=", "INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION WARNING". See comment
in 3.4.5 above. Same comment.

12. Section 3.6.1: It would be nice to subsection each of the tags.

13. Section 3.7: "content-hash" is not defined.

14. Section 3.9:

a. Neither TEMPFAIL nor PERMAFAIL is defined at this point.

b. I have no idea what the "output of a DKIM verifier module" is
supposed to mean.

I suspect that section 3.9 is at least misplaced in this document, and
probably completely unnecessary as it sounds like implementation details.

15. Section 3.10: Is this not completely redundant with the text in
3.6.1 regarding "t=s"?

16. Section 4.1: The "INFORMATIVE EXAMPLES" don't need to be called out
as such. The title of the section is "Example Scenarios". All of the
text here is example, and as such it is all informative.

17. Section 4.2, first INFORMATIVE NOTE: Why is this an informative
note? It seems like good protocol adivce and therefore should say that
signers SHOULD NOT sign exiting DKIM-Signauture fields.

18. Section 4.2, last paragraph: PERMFAIL is still not defined to this
point.

I suspect sections 3.8 through all of section 4 belong after (or in)
section 6.

19. Section 5.1, INFORMATIVE NOTE: Instead of saying "Signing modules
may be incorporated into any", how about "A signer can be implemented as
part of any"?

20. Section 5.1: I don't know what the term "signing address" means.

21. Section 5.3:

Therefore, a verifier
SHOULD NOT validate a message that is not compliant with those
specifications.

This section is about signing, not verifying. What is that sentence
doing in there?

22. Section 5.4:

INFORMATIVE ADMONITION: Despite the fact that [RFC5322] permits
header fields to be reordered (with the exception of Received
header fields)

5322 does *not* permit header fields to be reordered. It says:

...header fields SHOULD NOT be reordered when a message is transported
or transformed. More importantly, the trace header fields and resent
header fields MUST NOT be reordered, and SHOULD be kept in blocks
prepended to the message.

Suggest: "Despite the fact that [RFC5322] does not absolutely prohibit
header fields to be reordered..."

23. Section 5.5: Though section 5.5 is titled "Recommended Signature
Content", it is clear that the entire section is devoted to the topic of
section 5.4: "Determine the Header Fields to Sign". These two sections
should be combined, and might be subsections of a larger section. But it
was very confusing to read these as separate.

24. Section 6.1:

A verifier SHOULD NOT treat a message that has one or more bad
signatures and no good signatures differently from a message with no
signature at all; such treatment is a matter of local policy and is
beyond the scope of this document.

The two clauses in that sentence seem contradictory. Is there an
interoperability requirement that I not treat messages in a particular
way, or is it a matter of local policy?

25. Section 6.1, first "INFORMATIVE NOTE" on attack by many bad sigs:
Shouldn't this be a security consideration instead?

26. Section 6.1 (and subsections): This section is playing some sort of
game. The beginning of 6.1 describes some "statuses" and says things
like, "The '(explanation)' is not normative text; it is provided solely
for clarification." If it wanted to give an algorithm for Verfiers to
follow, where there was a certain state machine with states of
"PERMFAIL" and "TEMPFAIL", that would have been OK. But it is clear from
the use of the phrasing, for example, "return PERMFAIL (signature syntax
error)", the document is trying to sneak in some sort of actual APIs
into the protocol spec. I think this is bogus and would much prefer that
these sections be rewritten to say, "enters a PERMFAIL state", perhaps
labeling each paragraph with the explanation. For example, the first
paragraph of 6.1.1 could read:

Signature syntax

Implementers MUST meticulously validate the format and values in the
DKIM-Signature header field; any inconsistency or unexpected values
MUST cause the header field to be completely ignored and the verifier
enters a PERMFAIL state. Being "liberal in what you accept" is
definitely a bad strategy in this security context. Note however that
this does not include the existence of unknown tags in a DKIM-Signature
header field, which are explicitly permitted.

Version compatibility

Verifiers MUST enter a PERMFAIL state when presented a DKIM-Signature
header field with a "v=" tag that is inconsistent with this
specification.

The current text is too cute by half, and I think it obfuscates the meaning.

27. Section 6.1.3: I don't understand the meaning of the note, "(note
that this version does not actually need to be instantiated)".

28. Section 6.1.3:

verifiers might treat a message that contains bytes beyond the
indicated body length with suspicion, such as by declaring the
signature invalid (e.g., by returning PERMFAIL (unsigned content)),
or conveying the partial verification to the policy module.

Up to the word "suspicion", fine. After that, it is complete nonsense.
The signature is not invalid. If what you mean is "and may choose to
treat the signature as if it were invalid (e.g., by going into the
PERMFAIL state)", then say that. And again, this is trying to wrap APIs
and implementations choices into the protocol.

29. Section 8.1: See comments above regarding section 3.4.5.

30. Section 8.2: I don't see how this is DKIM specific. More
importantly, this section doesn't explain how user private keys relate
in any way to keys used in DKIM. Shouldn't this be a discussion about
security of private keys in general (not just ones on user machines)?

31. Section 8.5: I don't understand what the attack here is that has
anything to do with DKIM. I especially don't see why the accomplice is
an essential part of the example, unless all that is meant by
"accomplice" is "relay". The attack sounds like, "people can spam signed
messages", which is not an attack.

32. Section 8.14: This is a complete mischaracterization of the problem.
This is absolutely not an attack vector. If a signer wishes to prevent
additional *known* header fields from being verified, it can simply use
the technique outlined in 8.15. If the signer chooses not to do that, it
is expressing the intent that it considers messages valid that have
additional header fields added. *That's* the security consideration:
Signers should know that failing to include, e.g., "h=...:from:from:..."
on messages with one "From:" header field are leaving themselves open to
this attack. The attack is not on the verifier. Additionally:

Note that the technique for using "h=...:from:from:...", described in
Section 8.15 below, is of no effect in the case of an attacker that
is also the signer.

That sentence is utter nonsense. The signer *can't* be the attacker for
purposes of DKIM when it comes to the header fields it's willing to
sign. The Introduction (section 1) makes it absolutely clear that DKIM
is about transmitting information from a signer to a verifier.

Section 8.14 needs to be completely rewritten. It is nonsensical as it
stands.

33. Section 8.15:

However, [RFC5322] also tolerates obsolete message syntax, which does
allow things like multiple From: fields on messages. The
implementation of DKIM thus potentially creates a more stringent
layer of expectation regarding the meaning of an identity, while that
additional meaning is either obscured from or incorrectly presented
to an end user in this context.

DKIM can perfectly well deal with the obsolete syntax. The signer can
sign as many "From:" fields as the message has when signed, and add a
":from" to the "h=" tag to insure that the right number of them are
verified. As in 8.14, the attack is not on DKIM per se; it's on signers
that don't properly use the "h=" tag to sign those header fields that
they don't want added to.

Other malformed input might cause problems for a DKIM implementation,
but multiple header fields where 5322 3.6 only allows one is not that
sort of attack