RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 7483, "JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", March 2015

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 9083

Source of RFC: weirds (app)
See Also: RFC 7483 w/ inline errata

Errata ID: 4503
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Scott Hollenbeck
Date Reported: 2015-10-14
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2016-01-21

Section 5.2 and 5.3 says:

In Section 5.2:

"ldhName" : "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "ns1.foo.example",

In Section 5.3:

"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example",

"ldhName" : "xn--fo-cka.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example"

"ldhName" : "xn--fo-fka.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example"

"ldhName": "xn--fo-8ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example"

It should say:

In Section 5.2:

"ldhName" : "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "ns1.fóo.example",

In Section 5.3:

"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "fóo.example",

"ldhName" : "xn--fo-cka.example",
"unicodeName" : "fõo.example"

"ldhName" : "xn--fo-fka.example",
"unicodeName" : "föo.example"

"ldhName" : "xn--fo-8ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "fôo.example"

Notes:

The unicodeName examples in RFC 7483 are invalid per RFC 5890. Here's an example from Section 5.2 on page 23:

"unicodeName" : "ns1.foo.example",

Section 3 of 7483 says this about Unicode names:

"Unicode names: Textual representations of DNS names where one or more of the labels are U-labels as described by [RFC5890]."

5890 says: "A "U-label" is an IDNA-valid string of Unicode characters, in Normalization Form C (NFC) and including at least one non-ASCII character, expressed in a standard Unicode Encoding Form (such as UTF-8)."

The examples in 7483 contain all ASCII characters. Syntactically valid examples are shown in the corrected text.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search