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

[Bob Harold <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:37 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:03 PM
> Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5915)
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
>
>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
>
> 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