[DNSOP] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5915)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 20 December 2019 03:36 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191122000302.3D09AF40709@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191122000302.3D09AF40709@rfc-editor.org>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:36:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iL01QrdXT+7_SGVNczRJinGvYUbjB9n2XCd8-k_qcq+sA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/L_yjf4eyDRlkIOqaWULf1HUK8f0>
Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5915)
Precedence: list

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 <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:03 PM
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5915)
To: <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: <alexdupuy@google.com>, <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>


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 <alexdupuy@google.com>

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] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 … Warren Kumari
Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1… Wes Hardaker
Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1… Bob Harold
Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1… Ray Bellis
Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1… Tim Wicinski
Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1… Dick Franks
Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (… Viktor Dukhovni