On Tue, 6 Jul 2021, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 09:33 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
Perhaps instead of ephemeral/non-ephemeral, a fix would be:
One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 09:33 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> Perhaps instead of ephemeral/non-ephemeral, a fix would be:
>
> One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
> numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
> original port was a system port (<=1024)
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021, RFC Errata System wrote:
Original Text
-
One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
original port was ephemeral (>=1024) or nonephemeral (>1024).
Corrected Text
--
One example would be
The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC8932, "Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6629
--
