RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Rejected (2)

RFC 7719, "DNS Terminology", December 2015

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8499

Source of RFC: dnsop (ops)

Errata ID: 4611
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2016-02-02
Rejected by: Joel Jaeggli
Date Rejected: 2017-03-29

Section 2 says:

CNAME:  "It is traditional to refer to the owner of a CNAME record as
   'a CNAME'.  This is unfortunate, as 'CNAME' is an abbreviation of
   'canonical name', and the owner of a CNAME record is most certainly
   not a canonical name."  (Quoted from [RFC2181], Section 10.1.1)

It should say:

CNAME:  "It is traditional to refer to the label of a CNAME record as
   'a CNAME'.  This is unfortunate, as 'CNAME' is an abbreviation of
   'canonical name', and the label of a CNAME record is an alias, not
   a canonical name."  (Quoted from [RFC2181], Section 10.1.1)

Notes:

Incorrect quote from RFC 2181.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Not a technical erratum.

is corrected already in

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05

which should be examined for consistency

Errata ID: 5542
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Scott Corcoran
Date Reported: 2018-11-03
Rejected by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Rejected: 2019-01-09

Section 1 says:

https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop

It should say:

https://webplatform.github.io/


Notes:

The RFC should be edited to reflect the intended content. Unfortunately, although I am technical, I do not have knowledge of the original. There are also other dead references.... and a reference to a "dead project" which is still living, here, but with little reference to DNS or domains.

RFC Editor note: Errata are typically not used to correct URLs that were functioning at the time of publication. For this case, please see RFC 8499 (which obsoleted RFC 7719) for the current information.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thank you for submitting this. RFC 7719 has been updated by RFC8499 (published after your errata was submitted), which doesn't contain the reference.

Thanks again
W

Report New Errata