[Errata Rejected] RFC6106 (4864)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 29 January 2017 22:04 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3094129673; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:04:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ienPKjJmC_-q; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06AAE129672; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E2C43B811AE; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:04:36 -0800 (PST)
To: robbat2@gentoo.org, pjeong@brocade.com, soohong.park@samsung.com, luc.beloeil@orange-ftgroup.com, smadanapalli@gmail.com
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC6106 (4864)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20170129220436.E2C43B811AE@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:04:36 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/V1eEiDugx8Cqsl3SGybzdXlDGvs>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, text/plain@rfc-editor.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, charset=UTF-8@rfc-editor.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.orgContent-Type, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:04:38 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6106, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6106&eid=4864 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Robin Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> Date Reported: 2016-11-14 Rejected by: Suresh Krishnan (IESG) Section: 5.2. Original Text ------------- Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets. The minimum value is 2 if at least one domain name is contained in the option. The Length field is set to a multiple of 8 octets to accommodate all the domain names in the field of Domain Names of DNS Search List. Corrected Text -------------- Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets. The minimum value is 2 if at least one domain name is contained in the option. The Length field is set to a multiple of 8 octets to accommodate all the domain names in the field of Domain Names of DNS Search List. The exact maximum value supported by a given network is dictated by the MTU of the link, because the Router Advertisement MUST NOT be fragmented as per RFC6980#section5. The lowest possible MTU of 1280 results in a lower bound for the maximum value of 148 (representing 1192 octets). Notes ----- While the submitter's point is valid, there is not much that can be done on a per-option basis. Even if this option is sized so that it does not result in the fragmentation of the RA message, there might be other options that do. That is why the restriction for non-fragmentation is specified in a separate document and not in each document that defines an ND option. --VERIFIER NOTES-- While the submitter's point is valid, there is not much that can be done on a per-option basis. Even if this option is sized so that it does not result in the fragmentation of the RA message, there might be other options that do. That is why the restriction for non-fragmentation is specified in a separate document and not in each document that defines an ND option. -------------------------------------- RFC6106 (draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis-08) -------------------------------------- Title : IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration Publication Date : November 2010 Author(s) : J. Jeong, S. Park, L. Beloeil, S. Madanapalli Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IPv6 Maintenance Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Errata Rejected] RFC6106 (4864) RFC Errata System