On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:37 PM Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 agree that "complete" is much better than "unique". But if we are updating it, could we consider a better word than "forward" ? Actually "backward" would be correct, although I prefer "from the back to the front" as used elsewhere. -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
