RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (2)

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

Source of RFC: idnabis (app)

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.

Status: Reported (1)

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

Source of RFC: idnabis (app)

Errata ID: 5484
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Peter Occil
Date Reported: 2018-08-28

Section 2.3.2.1 says:

   For IDNA-aware applications, the three types of valid labels are
   "A-labels", "U-labels", and "NR-LDH labels", each of which is defined
   below.

It should say:

   For IDNA-aware applications, the three types of valid labels are
   "A-labels", "U-labels", and "NR-LDH labels", each of which is defined
   below and in section 2.3.1.

Notes:

The term NR-LDH label is actually defined in section 2.3.1, not later in this section.

Report New Errata