RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 12 records.

Status: Verified (12)

RFC 1035, "Domain names - implementation and specification", November 1987

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 1101, RFC 1183, RFC 1348, RFC 1876, RFC 1982, RFC 1995, RFC 1996, RFC 2065, RFC 2136, RFC 2181, RFC 2137, RFC 2308, RFC 2535, RFC 2673, RFC 2845, RFC 3425, RFC 3658, RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035, RFC 4343, RFC 5936, RFC 5966, RFC 6604, RFC 7766, RFC 8482, RFC 8490, RFC 8767

Source of RFC: Legacy
Area Assignment: int

Errata ID: 562
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: CFeng
Date Reported: 2003-02-09

Section 6.4.2 says:

                         +-----------------------------------------+
           Header        |         OPCODE=RESPONSE, ID=997         |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
          Question       |QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN, QNAME=VENERA.ISI.EDU |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
           Answer        |  VENERA.ISI.EDU  A IN 10.1.0.52         |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
          Authority      |                 <empty>                 |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
         Additional      |                 <empty>                 |
                         +-----------------------------------------+

It should say:

                         +-----------------------------------------+
           Header        |      OPCODE=IQUERY, ID=997, QR=1        |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
          Question       |QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN, QNAME=VENERA.ISI.EDU |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
           Answer        |  VENERA.ISI.EDU  A IN 10.1.0.52         |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
          Authority      |                 <empty>                 |
                         +-----------------------------------------+
         Additional      |                 <empty>                 |
                         +-----------------------------------------+

Notes:

There is an error in the Header line. It should be
"OPCODE=IQUERY, ID=997, QR=1" because the OPCODE does not have a
value of RESPONSE (see Section 4.1.1).

Errata ID: 2130
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alexei A. Smekalkine
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-04-26

Section 3.2.1 says:

TTL             a 32 bit signed integer that specifies the time interval
                that the resource record may be cached before the source
                of the information should again be consulted.  Zero
                values are interpreted to mean that the RR can only be
                used for the transaction in progress, and should not be
                cached.  For example, SOA records are always distributed
                with a zero TTL to prohibit caching.  Zero values can
                also be used for extremely volatile data.

It should say:

TTL             a 32 bit unsigned integer that specifies the time interval
                that the resource record may be cached before the source
                of the information should again be consulted.  Zero
                values are interpreted to mean that the RR can only be
                used for the transaction in progress, and should not be
                cached.  For example, SOA records are always distributed
                with a zero TTL to prohibit caching.  Zero values can
                also be used for extremely volatile data.

Notes:

Conflicting descriptions of the type of TTL field.

Section 3.2.1 says "a 32 bit signed integer" while section 4.1.3 says "a 32 bit unsigned integer".

Errata ID: 6601
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Patrick Ni
Date Reported: 2021-06-07
Verifier Name: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Verified: 2021-06-14

Section 7.1 says:

This timestamp uses the absolute time format previously discussed for RR storage in zones and caches

It should say:

This timestamp uses the absolute time format previously discussed for RR storage in caches

Notes:

In section 6.1.3. Time, it says "while data in the zone stays with constant TTL ... The RRs in zones use relative times; the refresh timers and cache data use absolute times"

Errata ID: 563
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Allan Edward Prentice
Date Reported: 2006-03-04
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-04-26

Section 5.1 says:

Because these files are text files several special encodings are
necessary to allow arbitrary data to be loaded. In particular:

                of the root.

@               A free standing @ is used to denote the current origin.

It should say:

Because these files are text files several special encodings are
necessary to allow arbitrary data to be loaded. In particular:

@               A free standing @ is used to denote the current origin.

Notes:

"of the root." makes no sense here.

Errata ID: 5728
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Etan Wexler
Date Reported: 2019-05-21
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2019-06-03

Section 3.3.5 says:

See the definition of MX and [RFC-974] for details ofw
the new scheme.

It should say:

See the definition of MX and [RFC-974] for details of
the new scheme.

Notes:

ofw -> of

Errata ID: 6264
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Merlin Büge
Date Reported: 2020-08-24
Verifier Name: Eric Vyncke
Date Verified: 2023-08-03

Section 2.2 says:

amount of new network code which is required.  This scheme can also
allow a group of hosts can share a small number of caches rather than
maintaining a large number of separate caches, on the premise that the
centralized caches will have a higher hit ratio.  In either case,

It should say:

amount of new network code which is required.  This scheme can also
allow a group of hosts to share a small number of caches rather than
maintaining a large number of separate caches, on the premise that the
centralized caches will have a higher hit ratio.  In either case,

Notes:

[WK]: s/a group of hosts can share a/a group of hosts to share a/ (I had to use 'dif' to find the change. Commenting here to save others from same.
[EV] Indeed the s/can/to/ is a valid grammar correction.

Errata ID: 6463
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ivan Panchenko
Date Reported: 2021-03-08
Verifier Name: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Verified: 2021-03-08

Section 3.3.13 says:

reason for this provison is to allow future dynamic update facilities to

It should say:

reason for this provision is to allow future dynamic update facilities to

Notes:

Mistyped "provision".

Errata ID: 6464
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ivan Panchenko
Date Reported: 2021-03-08
Verifier Name: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Verified: 2021-03-08

Section 4.1.4 says:

Pointers can only be used for occurances of a domain name where the

It should say:

Pointers can only be used for occurrences of a domain name where the

Notes:

Misspelled "occurrences".

Errata ID: 6465
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ivan Panchenko
Date Reported: 2021-03-08
Verifier Name: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Verified: 2021-03-08

Section 8.2 says:

      This condition means the the mailbox was actually a mailing

It should say:

      This condition means that the mailbox was actually a mailing

Notes:

Doubling.

Errata ID: 6466
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ivan Panchenko
Date Reported: 2021-03-08
Verifier Name: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Verified: 2021-03-08

Section 9 says:

                Superceeded by this memo.

It should say:

                Superseded by this memo.

Notes:

Misspelled "superseded".

Errata ID: 7424
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Wolfgang Keller
Date Reported: 2023-04-15
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2023-04-26

Section 2.3.1. says:

The following syntax will result in fewer problems with many

applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET).

It should say:

The following syntax will result in fewer problems with many
applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET).

Notes:

In section "2.3.1. Preferred name syntax" of RFC 1035, there occures a double newline in the middle of a sentence. This double newline should be replaced by a single newline.

Errata ID: 7587
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Roj
Date Reported: 2023-08-02
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2023-08-02

Section 4.1.1 says:

ID              A 16 bit identifier assigned by the program that
                generates any kind of query.  This identifier is copied
                the corresponding reply and can be used by the requester
                to match up replies to outstanding queries.

It should say:

ID              A 16 bit identifier assigned by the program that
                generates any kind of query.  This identifier is copied
                to the corresponding reply and can be used by the
                requester to match up replies to outstanding queries.

Notes:

There’s a missing preposition.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search