[dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3363 (3220)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 09 May 2012 21:47 UTC
Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B48711E80D0; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1336600039; bh=wh2I0XHx/CX7ysRiwDBy6TYxksLH63GmPxnHRUg7TYI=; h=To:From:Message-Id:Date:Cc:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=q9GfZ90Al/7pxK+gFMUoRrfAadvRbQHDSj5AtdhHflJOVvfb9npKuRzACav7sLZPr VYnYCZ4upyERsBYNmsvlM5HyahnYxqbXvCAz9V2xIsDYswz3x4+4TZeKcTg65bG+en 1JCf5xopyTmXIcD7jb1UUW01HhtxxBXgkoVTAeOY=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CE211E80D0 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f2C3tdNguTRU for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891F511E80CF for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0ED1862180; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, brian@innovationslab.net, ogud@ogud.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20120509214500.0ED1862180@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:45:00 -0700
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3363 (3220)
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3363, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3363&eid=3220 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Section: 4 Original Text ------------- 4. DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the other isn't either. Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental, the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse tree be deprecated. Corrected Text -------------- 4. DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree [Deleted due to faulty premise.] Notes ----- The opening premise of this section is demonstrably wrong, and so the conclusion based on that premise is wrong. The use of DNAME in the reverse tree is and always has been independent of A6. Instructions: ------------- This errata 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC3363 (draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-02) -------------------------------------- Title : Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS) Publication Date : August 2002 Author(s) : R. Bush, A. Durand, B. Fink, O. Gudmundsson, T. Hain Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : DNS Extensions Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
- [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3363 (322… RFC Errata System
- Re: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3363 … Chris Thompson
- Re: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3363 … Brian Haberman