Published RFCs never change. Although every published RFC has been submitted to careful proofreading by the RFC Editor and the author (s), errors do sometimes go undetected. As a service to the readers of RFCs, this page contains a list of technical and editorial errors that have been reported to the RFC Editor and verified by the authors or the IESG.
In general, we cannot guarantee the correctness of these errata; the reader must make his/her own judgment.
Erratum for RFC 1123
Reported By: Ben Harris; bjh21@cam.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:40:17 +0000
The table in Section 2.5 contains:
Host names of up to 635 characters |2.1 |x| | | | |They should should read:
Host names of up to 63 characters |2.1 |x| | | | |Rationale: Section 2.1 says "Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters" and doesn't mention the number 635 at all.
Section 7 contains:
[TELNET:9] "Telnet End-Of-Record Option," J. Postel, RFC-855, December 1983.It should read:
[TELNET:9] "Telnet End-Of-Record Option," J. Postel, RFC-885, December 1983.Rationale: RFC 855 is "Telnet Option Specifications"; RFC 885 is "Telnet end of record option".