RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 2136, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", April 1997

Source of RFC: dnsind (int)

Errata ID: 4469

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Mark Andrews
Date Reported: 2015-09-09
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2015-09-14

Section 3.4.2.2 says:

   3.4.2.2. Any Update RR whose CLASS is the same as ZCLASS is added to
   the zone.  In case of duplicate RDATAs (which for SOA RRs is always
   the case, and for WKS RRs is the case if the ADDRESS and PROTOCOL
   fields both match), the Zone RR is replaced by Update RR.  If the
   TYPE is SOA and there is no Zone SOA RR, or the new SOA.SERIAL is
   lower (according to [RFC1982]) than or equal to the current Zone SOA
   RR's SOA.SERIAL, the Update RR is ignored.  In the case of a CNAME
   Update RR and a non-CNAME Zone RRset or vice versa, ignore the CNAME
   Update RR, otherwise replace the CNAME Zone RR with the CNAME Update
   RR.

It should say:

   3.4.2.2. Any Update RR whose CLASS is the same as ZCLASS is added to
   the zone.  In case of duplicate RDATAs (which for SOA RRs is always
   the case, and for WKS RRs is the case if the ADDRESS and PROTOCOL
   fields both match), the Zone RR is replaced by Update RR.  If the
   TYPE is SOA and there is no Zone SOA RR, or the new SOA.SERIAL is
   lower (according to [RFC1982]) than or equal to the current Zone SOA
   RR's SOA.SERIAL, the Update RR is ignored.  In the case of a CNAME
   Update RR and a non-CNAME Zone RRset or vice versa, ignore the
   Update RR, otherwise replace the CNAME Zone RR with the CNAME Update
   RR.

Notes:

In the vice versa case it it not a CNAME Update RR, just a plain Update RR. Removing the word "CNAME" make the sentence cover both cases as intended.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 2136, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", April 1997

Source of RFC: dnsind (int)

Errata ID: 2805

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Tony Finch
Date Reported: 2011-05-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 1.1.1 says:

   1.1.1. Two RRs are considered equal if their NAME, CLASS, TYPE,
   RDLENGTH and RDATA fields are equal.  Note that the time-to-live
   (TTL) field is explicitly excluded from the comparison.

It should say:

   1.1.1. Two RRs are considered equal if their NAME, CLASS, TYPE,
   RDLENGTH and RDATA fields are equal.  Compressed names in the RDATA
   must be decompressed before comparison. Note that the time-to-live
   (TTL) field is explicitly excluded from the comparison.

Notes:

Name compression depends on the context of the RR so RDATA cannot correctly be compared bytewise without taking this into account.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×