Hi there all, I stumbled across this while cleaning out my mailbox -- I *think* that this makes sense, and that I should accept this as Hold For Document Update ( https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/ ) - does anyone disagree? If so, please let me know by Jan 5th. W
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: RFC Errata System <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:03 PM Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5915) To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC1035, "Domain names - implementation and specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5915 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Alexander Dupuy <[email protected]> Section: 6.2 Original Text ------------- When a response is so long that truncation is required, the truncation should start at the end of the response and work forward in the datagram. Thus if there is any data for the authority section, the answer section is guaranteed to be unique. Corrected Text -------------- When a response is so long that truncation is required, the truncation should start at the end of the response and work forward in the datagram. Thus if there is any data for the authority section, the answer section is guaranteed to be complete. Notes ----- It's not clear what it might mean for an answer section to be unique. However, by following the algorithm described of removing RRs from the back to the front, if any RRs remain in the authority (or additional) section, the answer section is guaranteed to be complete. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC1035 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : Domain names - implementation and specification Publication Date : November 1987 Author(s) : P.V. Mockapetris Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : Legacy Area : Legacy Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
