[DNSOP] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (6601)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:57 AM
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (6601)
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/eid6601

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Patrick Ni <[e-mail]>

Section: 7.1

Original Text
-------------
This timestamp uses the absolute time format previously discussed for RR
storage in zones and caches

Corrected Text
--------------
This timestamp uses the absolute time format previously discussed for RR
storage in caches

Notes
-----
In section 6.1.3. Time, it says "while data in the zone stays with constant
TTL ... The RRs in zones use relative times; the refresh timers and cache
data use absolute times"

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



-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra