RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (5)

RFC 5158, "6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation Specification", March 2008

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8996

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: int

Errata ID: 1362
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-11
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 4, pg.7 says: 

   This service is implemented by web servers that are operated on a
|  dual-stack IPv4 / IPv6 server, accessible via SSL.  [...]
                                                 ^^^

It should say:

   This service is implemented by web servers that are operated on a
|  dual-stack IPv4 / IPv6 server, accessible via TLS.  [...]

Notes:

Location is top of page 7.

The 4th paragraph of the same section (on page 6) clearly refers
to TLS [RFC4346]. SSL is *not* TLS, it's the predecessor, updated
in the IETF to fix serious security issues detected.

Hence the RFC should consistently refer to "TLS" and not mix in "SSL".

Errata ID: 1360
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-11
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 2.1,1st para says: 

                                                 [...].  In the case of
|  the 6to4 mapped IPv6 space, the upstream may not be providing any
   IPv6-based services at all, and therefore would not be expected to
   have a 6to4 reverse DNS delegation for its IPv4 address block.  [...]

It should say:

                                                 [...].  In the case of
|  the 6to4 mapped IPv6 space, the upstream provider may not be providing
   any IPv6-based services at all, and therefore would not be expected to
   have a 6to4 reverse DNS delegation for its IPv4 address block.  [...]

Notes:

Missing noun, "provider".

This note and the subsequent ones repeat the more significant
issues pointed out in review comments sent Aug 21, 2007, which
apparently have been missed (after positive acknowledgement).

Errata ID: 1361
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-11
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 3., pg. 5 says: 

   The IPv4 address used as part of the generation of 6to4 addresses for
   the local IPv6 network is that of the external IPv4 network interface
   address (labelled '(A)' in the above diagram).  For example, if the
   interface (A) has the IPv4 address 192.0.2.1, then the local IPv6
   clients will use a common IPv6 address prefix of the form 2002:
|  {192.0.2.1}::/48 (or (2002:C000:201::/48 in hex notation).  All the
                        ^
   local IPv6 clients share this common /48 address prefix, irrespective
   of any local IPv4 address that such host may use if they are
   operating in a dual stack mode.

It should say:

   The IPv4 address used as part of the generation of 6to4 addresses for
   the local IPv6 network is that of the external IPv4 network interface
   address (labelled '(A)' in the above diagram).  For example, if the
   interface (A) has the IPv4 address 192.0.2.1, then the local IPv6
   clients will use a common IPv6 address prefix of the form 2002:
|  {192.0.2.1}::/48 (or 2002:C000:201::/48 in hex notation).  All the
   local IPv6 clients share this common /48 address prefix, irrespective
   of any local IPv4 address that such host may use if they are
   operating in a dual stack mode.

Notes:

Issue: mismatched (spurious) opening parentheses.
Location is last paragraph on page 5.

Errata ID: 1363
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-11
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 4, pg.7 says: 

                                    vv
|         [...], given the potentially for inheritance of 'stale'
      reverse DNS information in this context, in those cases where [...]

It should say:

|         [...], given the potential for inheritance of 'stale' reverse
      DNS information in this context, in those cases where [...]

Notes:

Location is last paragraph on page 7 (2nd bullet).

Errata ID: 1364
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-11
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 8.2 says: 

   [6to4-dns]  Moore, K., "6to4 and DNS", Work in Progress, April 2003.

It should say:

   [6to4-dns]  Moore, K., "6to4 and DNS", Work in Progress, October 2002.

Notes:

The only matching draft that can be found in the archives has an
*expiration* month of April 2003; nevertheless, it has been
published in October 2002, and that month should be listed.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search