Subject: [dnsext] errata 4034 - 5011

From: Matthijs Mekking <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:37:33 +0100

I was notified about the fact that 5011 does not update 4034, and vice
versa. Because of the description of the REVOKED bit, I believe it
should. That's why I would like to report two editorial erratas, one for
4034, one for 5011.

Regards,

Matthijs Mekking
NLnet Labs

--
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: "Roy Arends" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:10:11 +0100

Matthijs Mekking wrote on 12/04/2008 11:37:33 AM:

> I was notified about the fact that 5011 does not update 4034,

That is correct.

> and vice versa.

It is hard to write a document that updates future publications 
preemptively, so we decided to leave it out when writing rfc4034. :-)

> Because of the description of the REVOKED bit, I believe it

What should be updated? Can you suggest text? IMHO the document does not 
need to be updated solely on the assignment of new flags by IANA. 

Regards,

Roy Arends
Sr. Researcher
Nominet UK

---

From: Matthijs Mekking <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:46:38 +0100

I only suggest 'Updates: 4034' or another pointer, to indicate the
relationship between the documents. Don't know if the Errata is the
correct place to do it.

> need to be updated solely on the assignment of new flags by IANA. 

   Bits 0-6 and 8-14 are reserved: these bits MUST have value 0 upon
   creation of the DNSKEY RR and MUST be ignored upon receipt

Technically, bit 7 is not reserved anymore. But I think it will not harm
revocation-oblivious resolvers to ignore the REVOKE bit.

Matthijs