RFC Errata
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.
