RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 2136, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", April 1997
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3007, RFC 4035, RFC 4033, RFC 4034
Source of RFC: dnsind (int)
Errata ID: 4469
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mark Andrews
Date Reported: 2015-09-09
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2015-09-14
Section 3.4.2.2 says:
3.4.2.2. Any Update RR whose CLASS is the same as ZCLASS is added to the zone. In case of duplicate RDATAs (which for SOA RRs is always the case, and for WKS RRs is the case if the ADDRESS and PROTOCOL fields both match), the Zone RR is replaced by Update RR. If the TYPE is SOA and there is no Zone SOA RR, or the new SOA.SERIAL is lower (according to [RFC1982]) than or equal to the current Zone SOA RR's SOA.SERIAL, the Update RR is ignored. In the case of a CNAME Update RR and a non-CNAME Zone RRset or vice versa, ignore the CNAME Update RR, otherwise replace the CNAME Zone RR with the CNAME Update RR.
It should say:
3.4.2.2. Any Update RR whose CLASS is the same as ZCLASS is added to the zone. In case of duplicate RDATAs (which for SOA RRs is always the case, and for WKS RRs is the case if the ADDRESS and PROTOCOL fields both match), the Zone RR is replaced by Update RR. If the TYPE is SOA and there is no Zone SOA RR, or the new SOA.SERIAL is lower (according to [RFC1982]) than or equal to the current Zone SOA RR's SOA.SERIAL, the Update RR is ignored. In the case of a CNAME Update RR and a non-CNAME Zone RRset or vice versa, ignore the Update RR, otherwise replace the CNAME Zone RR with the CNAME Update RR.
Notes:
In the vice versa case it it not a CNAME Update RR, just a plain Update RR. Removing the word "CNAME" make the sentence cover both cases as intended.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 2136, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", April 1997
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3007, RFC 4035, RFC 4033, RFC 4034
Source of RFC: dnsind (int)
Errata ID: 2805
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tony Finch
Date Reported: 2011-05-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Section 1.1.1 says:
1.1.1. Two RRs are considered equal if their NAME, CLASS, TYPE, RDLENGTH and RDATA fields are equal. Note that the time-to-live (TTL) field is explicitly excluded from the comparison.
It should say:
1.1.1. Two RRs are considered equal if their NAME, CLASS, TYPE, RDLENGTH and RDATA fields are equal. Compressed names in the RDATA must be decompressed before comparison. Note that the time-to-live (TTL) field is explicitly excluded from the comparison.
Notes:
Name compression depends on the context of the RR so RDATA cannot correctly be compared bytewise without taking this into account.