No worries. FYI, errata don't actually update documents, so they're not the right solution. The thing about 1034/1035 is that they are very readable, and a good place to start. Think of it as being like Talmudic commentary (or TIbetan Buddhist, for that matter)--you just have to read all the layers to get the full story.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Adrien de Croy <adr...@qbik.com> wrote: > > I've seen a lot of RFCs marked as obsoleted. > > When you see updated by about 20 more RFCs, and you start to click through > them, and see mostly they relate to DNSSEC etc, it can be a bit of an > impediment. > > maybe an errata would be more visible for this kind of issue. > > thanks for your patience! > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com> > To: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com> > Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org> > Sent: 8/04/2016 2:31:13 p.m. > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 > vs Wikipedia etc > > > The document I mentioned updates RFC 1034. That's how we do things in > the IETF! > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Adrien de Croy <adr...@qbik.com> wrote: > >> yeah, paragraph 2 of that section is what I quoted as at odds with >> 1034/1035. >> >> I've been reading this stuff all day.... >> >> Looks like 1034/1035 should be obsoleted. >> >> Thankfully not many people nowadays need to write DNS resolvers. >> >> Adrien >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com> >> To: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com> >> Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org> >> Sent: 8/04/2016 2:24:33 p.m. >> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 >> vs Wikipedia etc >> >> >> Have you read the rest of the documents? E.g.,: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2181#section-11 >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Adrien de Croy <adr...@qbik.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com> >>> >>> >>> <domain> ::= <subdomain> | " " >>>> >>>> <subdomain> ::= <label> | <subdomain> "." <label> >>>> >>>> <label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ] >>>> >>>> <ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp> <ldh-str> >>>> >>>> <let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-" >>>> >>>> <let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit> >>>> >>>> <letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in >>>> upper case and a through z in lower case >>>> >>>> <digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 >>>> >>>> >>>> if this was a BNF production only for hostnames, why call it <domain>, >>> <label> etc. >>> >>> There's no other BNF for domain name in the spec. >>> >>> Adrien >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
