Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 5890, "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", August 2010

Errata ID: 4695
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Juan Altmayer Pizzorno
Date Reported: 2016-05-17
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2016-10-07

Section 2.3.2.1 says:

expansion of the A-label form to a U-label may produce strings that are
much longer than the normal 63 octet DNS limit (potentially up to 252
characters)
^^^^^^^^^

It should say:

expansion of the A-label form to a U-label may produce strings that are
much longer than the normal 63 octet DNS limit (potentially up to 252
octets)
^^^^^

Notes:

The sentence should have used "octets" instead of "characters".

A separate erratum was files for possible tightening of the upper bound in a future revision of this document.

Errata ID: 4696
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Juan Altmayer Pizzorno
Date Reported: 2016-05-17
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2016-10-07

Section 4.2 says:

Because A-labels (the form actually used in the
DNS) are potentially much more compressed than UTF-8 (and UTF-8 is,
in general, more compressed that UTF-16 or UTF-32), U-labels that
obey all of the relevant symmetry (and other) constraints of these
documents  may be quite a bit longer, potentially up to 252 characters
(Unicode code points).

It should say:

Because A-labels (the form actually used in the
DNS) are potentially much more compressed than UTF-8 (and UTF-8 is,
in general, more compressed that UTF-16 or UTF-32), U-labels that
obey all of the relevant symmetry (and other) constraints of these
documents  may be quite a bit longer, potentially up to 252 octets.
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^

Notes:

Similar to Erratum 4695.

Errata ID: 7291
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: John Klensin
Date Reported: 2022-12-26
Verifier Name: Murray Kucherawy
Date Verified: 2023-06-01

Throughout the document, when it says:

Request for Comments: 5890
Obsoletes: 3490
Category: Standards Track

It should say:

Request for Comments: 5890
Obsoletes: 3490
Updates: 4343
Category: Standards Track

Notes:

I have no idea whether this correction is Editorial or Technical , nor what to use as a Section indication. However...

RFC 5890 (or IDNA2008 more generally), should have updated RFC 4343 and the IDN discussion in its Section 5. The latter references the IDNA2003 documents and makes some statements that are, at best, confusing in the context of IDNA2008.

See the extended notes for RFC 4343 in https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7290 for more discussion and details.

Recommendation: Hold for document update unless this appears to anyone to be a serious problem, in which case a separate RFC, using the notes on Errata ID 7290 as a starting point, may be in order.

[AD Note:] Marking this as Verified, and will direct the RFC Editor to update the metadata about both documents.

Report New Errata