[IPv6][Errata Rejected] RFC5952 (4985)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 04 September 2025 06:01 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipv6@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from rfcpa.rfc-editor.org (unknown [167.172.21.234]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 077445D231A2; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 23:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 461) id C9E7129031C; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 23:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: julianedprado@gmail.com, kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp, kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20250904060118.C9E7129031C@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2025 23:01:18 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: IH3KHO4GRPJGIBTYRSRHPL3H3V4VDECE
X-Message-ID-Hash: IH3KHO4GRPJGIBTYRSRHPL3H3V4VDECE
X-MailFrom: wwwrun@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipv6.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: iesg@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6][Errata Rejected] RFC5952 (4985)
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pWpq-9LMKMJfnHYEdRzv4eGTMxE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipv6-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipv6-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipv6-leave@ietf.org>
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5952, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4985 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Julian de Prado <julianedprado@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2017-03-31 Rejected by: Erik Kline (IESG) Section: 2.2 Original Text ------------- In cases where there is more than one field of only zeros, there is a choice of how many fields can be shortened. 2001:db8:0:0:0::1 2001:db8:0:0::1 2001:db8:0::1 2001:db8::1 Corrected Text -------------- In cases where there is more than one field of only zeros,there is a choice of how many fields can be shortened, but must be shortened to its maximum capability. 2001:db8:0:0:0::1 is NOT acceptable 2001:db8:0:0::1 is NOT acceptable 2001:db8:0::1 is NOT acceptable 2001:db8::1 is CORRECT Notes ----- Applying section 4.2.1 --VERIFIER NOTES-- --- ek@ --- Section 2.2 is, as part of Section 2, listing "Examples of flexibility". There is nothing prescriptive in any of these sections and, as noted, section 4.2.* is where the recommendations are made. -------------------------------------- RFC5952 (draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07) -------------------------------------- Title : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation Publication Date : August 2010 Author(s) : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IPv6 Maintenance Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [IPv6][Errata Rejected] RFC5952 (4985) RFC Errata System