Hello, I have an erratum to this reported erratum. This proposed corrected paragraph:
> Strictly speaking, the CDS record could be "CDS X 0 X 00" as only the > DNSKEY algorithm is what signals the DELETE operation, but for > clarity, the "0 0 0 00" notation is mandated -- this is not a > definition of DS digest algorithm 0. The same argument applies to > "CDNSKEY 0 3 0 AA=="; the value 3 in the second field is mandated by > [RFC4034], Section 2.1.2. should actually look like this (difference is the first CDS example): > Strictly speaking, the CDS record could be "CDS X 0 X X" as only the > DNSKEY algorithm is what signals the DELETE operation, but for > clarity, the "0 0 0 00" notation is mandated -- this is not a > definition of DS digest algorithm 0. The same argument applies to > "CDNSKEY 0 3 0 AA=="; the value 3 in the second field is mandated by > [RFC4034], Section 2.1.2. Otherwise, the statement "only the DNSKEY algorithm is what signals the DELETE operation" would not make any sense. -- Regards, Ondřej Caletka
smime.p7s
Description: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
