Hi Mark, Paul, and Warren,
The RPC set this to technical because we cannot determine the validity of the
report or provide appropriate notes. As AD, Warren can reset the type to
editorial if/when he verifies the report.
Also, Warren can update the report to say “global” rather than point to a
> On Oct 26, 2023, at 21:51, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> 'flag: do’ is just the way ‘dig’ displays ‘DO=1’ in the EDNS flags.
I had even sent a patch in a decade ago for dig to take +do as alias for
+dnssec but it got rejected
> I would leave this as editorial. I would accept this but I
'flag: do’ is just the way ‘dig’ displays ‘DO=1’ in the EDNS flags.
I would leave this as editorial. I would accept this but I doubt there will
ever be a reissue. If this editorial change is made there are other instances
that would need changes.
> On 27 Oct 2023, at 12:11, Rebecca VanRheenen
Hi Warren,
We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial.
Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata
report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the
Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8906,
"A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7689
--
Type:
