Subject: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3363 (3220)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3363,
"Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3363&eid=3220

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>

Section: 4

Original Text
-------------
4.  DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree

   The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
   closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
   one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
   other isn't either.  Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
   the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
   tree be deprecated.

Corrected Text
--------------
4. DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree

[Deleted due to faulty premise.]

Notes
-----
The opening premise of this section is demonstrably wrong, and so the conclusion based on that premise is wrong.  The use of DNAME in the reverse tree is and always has been independent of A6.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC3363 (draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-02)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)
Publication Date    : August 2002
Author(s)           : R. Bush, A. Durand, B. Fink, O. Gudmundsson, T. Hain
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : DNS Extensions
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Chris Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 May 2012 23:15:22 +0100

On May 9 2012, RFC Errata System wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>dnsext mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

I don't really know whether this is technically an erratum, but it was a
quite unnecessary and unjustified side-swipe at DNAME.

As it happens, our primary use of DNAME is in the IPv4 reverse tree rather
than the IPv6 one (the wording in RFC 3363 is slithery in at least half-
implying that ought to be deprecated as well), because its primary use
(or that of CNAME, for that matter) is consolidation, and at this time
IPv4 space is much more fragmented.

-- 
Chris Thompson               University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Email: [email-masked]    New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
Phone: +44 1223 334715       United Kingdom.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 08:50:40 -0400

Chris,
      This errata report came out of the processing of 
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname.  That draft contains text in section 
4 that states:

    The DNAME RR is discussed in RFC 3363, section 4, on A6 and DNAME.
    The opening premise of this section is demonstrably wrong, and so the
    conclusion based on that premise is wrong.

The RFC Editor asked if there should be an errata report filed to clean 
up RFC 3363.

Regards,
Brian

On 5/9/12 6:15 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>> The opening premise of this section is demonstrably wrong, and so the
>> conclusion based on that premise is wrong. The use of DNAME in the
>> reverse tree is and always has been independent of A6.
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------