Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8078 (5049)

[Ondřej Caletka <[e-mail]>]

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