RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 3445, "Limiting the Scope of the KEY Resource Record (RR)", December 2002

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035

Source of RFC: dnsext (int)

Errata ID: 7836
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ted Lemon
Date Reported: 2024-03-04
Verifier Name: Eric Vyncke
Date Verified: 2024-04-23

Throughout the document, when it says:

Updates: RFC2535

It should say:

Updates: RFC2535, RFC2931


This is based on our experience that when writing draft-ietf-dnssd-srp, we had no idea that the KEY RR format was updated, because there was no reference to the updated format in the datatracker page for RFC2931. I think it makes sense to say that 3445 updates 2931, because it does so explicitly.

-- Verifier (Eric Vyncke) note --
See also https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/bSBYA97VQItwQS26fpVdQocrvnA/

I will request the IETF secretariat to update the datatracker.

Errata ID: 272
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: "Scott Rose"
Date Reported: 2005-02-22
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-05-01

Values for the key protocol octet are incorrect. They should be:

        VALUE   Protocol

          0      -reserved
          1     reserved (was TLS)
          2     reserved (was email)
          3     dnssec
          4     reserved (was IPSEC)
         5-255   reserved


Rationale: Looking at RFC2535, the values are the original assignments. The
numbers in RFC3445 are incorrect and don't match. I guess since the
registry was closed, they are all reserved now and no one double checked.

RFC 2535 has the original correct assignments, and the registry is correct
in stating that they are now all reserved.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search