RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 2606, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", June 1999
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6761
Source of RFC: dnsind (int)
Errata ID: 7741
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tromler
Date Reported: 2023-12-25
Held for Document Update by: Éric Vyncke
Date Held: 2024-01-12
Throughout the document, when it says:
Reserved Top Level DNS Names invalid DNS names
It should say:
Reserved Top Level domain Names invalid domain names
Notes:
There is no such concept as a DNS name, nor is it found in any RFC. The correct concept is a domain name.
--RFC Editor Note:--
The term “DNS name” does appear in a number of RFCs, including recent ones (e.g., RFCs 9498, 9476, and 9178). It also appears in 6761, which updates 2606.
-- Verifier note --
The shortcut "DNS name" is indeed not in RFC 8499 (DNS terminology) but is also often used as a short cut.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 2606, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", June 1999
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6761
Source of RFC: dnsind (int)
Errata ID: 7304
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Rich Salz
Date Reported: 2023-01-13
Rejected by: Eric Vyncke
Date Rejected: 2023-08-03
Throughout the document, when it says:
example.org, ...
It should say:
example.org, example.edu, ...
Notes:
Should mention `example.edu` as one of the reserved names as well, since IANA is doing that according to Kim Davies. The 6125bis draft uses it in some examples.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
While 'example.edu' is indeed operated by IANA, it does appear neither in the "special-use domain names" registry of IANA nor in RFC 6761.