RFC 3364, "Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS) Support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", August 2002Source of RFC: dnsext (int)
See Also: RFC 3364 w/ inline errata
Errata ID: 1680
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: John Klensin
Date Reported: 2009-02-09
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-05-01
Section "Bitlabels" says:
addresses, it proposes to use a new kind of DNS label (a "bit label") to represent binary addresses directly in the DNS.
It should say:
addresses, it proposes to use a new kind of DNS label (a "bit label"), specified in [RFC2673], to represent binary addresses directly in the DNS. *** RFC 2673 should also appear in the References section.***
This document is listed as updating RFC 2673. That claim is actually dubious, since it simply explains why one particular application of 2673 may not be appropriate, an application that is not even mentioned in 2673 itself. But, if it does actually update 2673, then it should be possible for the reader to deduce how the two document interact without extensive detective work.
An alternative fix would be to remove the entry indicating updating of 2673 from the header of this document and corresponding indexes and references -- what this actually updates is 2874, which specifies a particular application of 2673.