Hi all, I believe that this Errata should be marked as Verified; does anyone disagree?
Please let me know by Friday if you disagree, W ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: RFC Errata System <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:57 AM Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (6601) To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC1035, "Domain names - implementation and specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6601 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Patrick Ni <[email protected]> Section: 7.1 Original Text ------------- This timestamp uses the absolute time format previously discussed for RR storage in zones and caches Corrected Text -------------- This timestamp uses the absolute time format previously discussed for RR storage in caches Notes ----- In section 6.1.3. Time, it says "while data in the zone stays with constant TTL ... The RRs in zones use relative times; the refresh timers and cache data use absolute times" Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC1035 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : Domain names - implementation and specification Publication Date : November 1987 Author(s) : P.V. Mockapetris Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : Legacy Area : Legacy Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
