While there is nothing wrong with the change it isn’t actually a
errata as it is referring the reader back to section 6.1.3 where
both forms where discussed together.
> On 8 Jun 2021, at 06:20, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I believe that this Errata should be marked as Verified; does a
Hi all,
I believe that this Errata should be marked as Verified; does anyone
disagree?
Please let me know by Friday if you disagree,
W
-- Forwarded message -
From: RFC Errata System
Date: Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:57 AM
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (6601)
To:
Cc: ,
Hello Stephane
please see my responses inline. thanks
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:49 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:23PM -0700,
> Suhas Nandakumar via Datatracker wrote
> a message of 72 lines which said:
>
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft
>
>
Hi Davey, all,
On 03/06/2021 15:56, Davey Song wrote:
nothing prevents the use of RRSERIAL and NSID in the
resolvers. Last paragraph of RFC5001 section 2.2 says so,
Yes. Thanks for pointing it out.
RFC5001 is already implemented by a number of resolvers.
https://www.powerdns.com/c
Benjamin Kaduk writes:
...
>>
>> >
>> >"status": Include only if a class or type registration has been
>> > deprecated or obsoleted. In both cases, use the value "obsolete"
>> > as the argument of the "status" statement.
>> >
>> > I don't see any logic in the XSLT that looks f
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:23PM -0700,
Suhas Nandakumar via Datatracker wrote
a message of 72 lines which said:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft
Thanks for the review.
> Section 2.3
> 1. MAX_MINIMISE_COUNT and MINIMISE_ONE_LAB - are the values for these
> constants
> n
