Jack Schwartz wrote: > Hi Dave. > > After coding up the changes per RFC 3696, it occurred that in the past > I've used an underscore in the name without problems. I'm not sure > that's the right document. > > Meantime, I've found out that what this is used for is a multicast DNS > address. There is a document: > http://files.multicastdns.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns.txt > > which says what can and cannot be in a multicast DNS address in section 18. > > In the end it says: > "Multicast DNS implementations MUST NOT use any other encodings apart > from precomposed UTF-8 (US-ASCII being considered a compatible subset of > UTF-8)." > > So does this mean that any char (value 255 or less) is OK? > > If so, maybe checking only for dots to reject is OK... > > If I'm confused, can you please shed some light. You seem to know a lot > about this... >
Not really any more than has been brought to light here, I just happened to be aware of IDN support coming in some time ago. For the moment, assuring that it's in the ASCII set is probably sufficient. Full support for IDN appears to require work in the applications to convert from non-ASCII to ASCII forms [1]. Dave [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_domain_name > Thanks, > Jack > > > > On 03/07/09 13:49, Dave Miner wrote: >> Clay Baenziger wrote: >>> Hi Jack, >>> I think this looks good, it should certainly make life more >>> simple for our users. >>> I do think checking for just dots in the service name is a little >>> too narrow. I was looking at the section "Restrictions on domain >>> (DNS) names" in RFC 3696 and believe we may instead want to check >>> that there's only [a-zA-Z0-9_] in the name to ensure there's not >>> unanticipated problems as currently it looks like I could get an >>> ampersand or pound sign in which could be difficult for some of the >>> installadm shell scripts and the DNS system too. Let me know your >>> thoughts on this or if being C checking for dots is about all that >>> can easily be done at this time. >> Internationalized domain names are now supported in the internet >> infrastructure, I don't recall the specific RFC that covers the legal >> values, but likely needs to cover more than the range above. >> >> Dave >> >>> Thank you, >>> Clay >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Jack Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone. >>>> >>>> Here is a code review for a couple of small bugfixes: >>>> >>>> 5091 AI install does not work if your service name had . in it. >>>> 4610 most installadm commands need to err out gracefully if not root >>>> >>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~schwartz/090306.1/webrev/ >>>> >>>> Please review. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Jack >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
