| CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:16:39 GMT
content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
content-encoding: gzip
set-cookie: PHPSESSID=v22qirqvbgfn50q2d7khcig054; path=/
expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
cache-control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate
pragma: no-cache
vary: Accept-Encoding
strict-transport-security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
x-content-type-options: nosniff
cf-cache-status: DYNAMIC
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 960b0b7e1f5b860e-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
RFC Errata Report » RFC Editor
Search RFCs
The Series
For Authors
Sponsor
RFC Errata
Found 1 record.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 8932, "Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators", October 2020
Source of RFC: dprive (int)
Errata ID: 6629
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Joeri de Ruiter
Date Reported: 2021-07-05
Held for Document Update by: Eric Vyncke
Date Held: 2021-07-05
Section B.1. says:
One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the original port was ephemeral (>=1024) or nonephemeral (>1024).
It should say:
One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the original port was ephemeral (>=1024) or nonephemeral (<1024).
Notes:
Nonephemeral port numbers are <1024
--- Verifier note ---
The errata is indeed a real typo. As it is in appendix, "held for document update" was selected.
IAB • IANA • IETF • IRTF • ISE • ISOC • IETF Trust
Reports • Privacy Statement • Site Map • Contact Us