RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 3363, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", August 2002

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6672

Source of RFC: dnsext (int)

Errata ID: 3220
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Mark Andrews
Date Reported: 2012-05-09
Rejected by: Ralph Droms
Date Rejected: 2013-03-10

Section 4 says:

4.  DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree

   The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
   closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
   one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
   other isn't either.  Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
   the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
   tree be deprecated.

It should say:

4. DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree

[Deleted due to faulty premise.]


The opening premise of this section is demonstrably wrong, and so the conclusion based on that premise is wrong. The use of DNAME in the reverse tree is and always has been independent of A6.
The scope of the requested change is outside what can be specified through an errata.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search