Subject: Typo/bug in RFC 3597

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:45:59 +0200

After following up to a posting to the "rfc-interest" mailing list
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2005-September/000356.html>
a habitually alert namedropper reminded me that RFC 3597 is up for advancement,
so the issue at hand could be easily fixed:

----

7.  DNSSEC Canonical Form and Ordering

[...]

   As a courtesy to implementors, it is hereby noted that the complete
   set of such previously published RR types that contain embedded
   domain names, and whose DNSSEC canonical form therefore involves
   downcasing according to the DNS rules for character comparisons,
   consists of the RR types NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG, MR, PTR,
   HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT, NAPTR, KX, SRV,
   DNAME, and A6.

----

This list, which was also copied into section 6.2 of RFC 4034, contains HINFO
twice {well, yes, in mathematics duplication of a _set_ member is meaningless}
where it should not appear at all since it doesn't carry domain names in RDATA.
More or less as a fair compensation, NSAP-PTR is missing from the above list.
It is arguable, however, whether it (and MD/MF) should be considered in the
first place given that 1035 obsoleted MD/MF and 1637 dropped NSAP-PTR.

When advancing 3597 it might be a good idea to drop section 7 completely,
which would also reduce the number of necessary down-references. The above
list would then be corrected in the RFC 4034 errata document.

-Peter

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:59:11 +0200

> list would then be corrected in the RFC 4034 errata document.

This sounds like a good idea and off-list Andreas has been found  
prepared to edit the changes, it will solve one of the down-ref  
problem that is now holding 3597 to go to draft std.

In addition to the above suggestion the intention is to solve the  
"downref" problem with 2163 by treating 2163 as informational and  
bein updated by 3597 (cf https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ 
pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=38217)

Please voice objections soon, if you have any.

- --Olaf

PS see https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
command=view_id&dTag=3597&rfc_flag=1 for the complete IESG discussion  
history.

- -------------------------------------- Olaf M. Kolkman
As of September 1, 2005 my
email address is [email-masked]