From nobody Mon Jun 7 13:21:47 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB133A0D02 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gLNx2lsXloQL for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE7B3A0D01 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id v8so28363605lft.8 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:21:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=r7g8ONKW/Pf4mDfLAtYzOA1PjGaxAWLBvKptkmuaMJk=; b=dIoKC3/BEKc1yPROBe9a9JyaSLfMncufkBwjuJM8rVOOft5DqWHye9mk65tgyeaVjx SHlyXIofZ8yWqdDFHhcWhR7w9cwlS2LnRFi3OR0EkT8qR90rlJMCCRMCZeJY0ERPD4Ya m/LX8itTqdU+rS1nkm25x7pNnohh7mbl5W4R33/yLmaTtuYmxJLVejt5Id+mY+pWWR/1 7o8ukWPVHKZepuh3nxHJPdHM9QPS3rNxjFDYEawBfzuf1OWMy/g8l7I6pAO2sTp5wyEt UswC4U8H3lJyFknR25WBQS047qHnXLKtbUxhi734bstK8xcioNeOyshgMkLBDlosjn7l xc9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=r7g8ONKW/Pf4mDfLAtYzOA1PjGaxAWLBvKptkmuaMJk=; b=TbFolISbBXugMUBiFaMz1ZmbygM8+sm1r6AgH3OxE1/Dwer/303z+7VaAgBPt5MlXQ 4GiOHdl98kx4ID/HmC4R80jQM/cDVzywdR/o4kg2O63wwPlu3XW3hwl0vkSWxOx2h+zM KHwiPi3vshuJJ+VoJT/iby75M25lwDM436dmVP0H90dwQ3TI5Lx0VDATxntDEBqD0bQI ZQm7NbpRFlU2G2piJcl9p0NvMAeIyIQHD45j3mM/Cqn8Cbknji1xGP0c9+yXp1XOmLSi ATou8zEpy+3jU2BWP1UwSfWRdx0ga7iRNQefXjKqJtW1pKDoaWJdR5+TPbYPYLB8JuGZ wPaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hSpDwR8n5TJlKZjjlNnR0mwSaANca2xdhk4gcoXd7DfjEZ9RE To0hc1JtOx5WCpdAr0SsxME2XdaSJ3fR3hTFMd51RG5E1XA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhE+4meJ8nTKDlnn7eMenOSQt7aRoFJkRMiikUdyOoraiWQBcLCFmVsxrLfaJkl7+lhTEHZ4jX06MG40RKIJI= X-Received: by 2002:a19:4086:: with SMTP id n128mr13202891lfa.464.1623097296042; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:21:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210607045647.B9E60F4084C@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20210607045647.B9E60F4084C@rfc-editor.org> From: Warren Kumari Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:20:59 -0400 Message-ID: To: dnsop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4597b05c432c9be" Archived-At: Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (6601) X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 20:21:46 -0000 --000000000000c4597b05c432c9be Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: , 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 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 --=20 The computing scientist=E2=80=99s main challenge is not to get confused by = the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra --000000000000c4597b05c432c9be Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

I believe=C2=A0that this Errata should be marked a= s Verified; does anyone disagree?

Please let me know by Friday if yo= u disagree,
W

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-edito= r.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:57 AM
Subject: [Tec= hnical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (6601)
To: <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: <patrick.ni@redant.ca>, <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>


The followi= ng 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 <patrick.ni@redant.ca>

Section: 7.1

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

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

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

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, ple= ase
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party=C2=A0
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC1035 (no draft string recorded)
--------------------------------------
Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Domain names = - implementation and specification
Publication Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 : November 1987
Author(s)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: P.V. Mockapetris
Category=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : INTERNET STANDARD
Source=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Legacy
Area=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Legacy
Stream=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : IETF
Verifying Party=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: IESG



--
The compu= ting scientist=E2=80=99s main challenge is not to get confused by the
co= mplexities of his own making.
=C2=A0 -- E. W. Dijkstra
--000000000000c4597b05c432c9be--