RFC Errata
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 GROUPArea 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.