On Nov 5, 2009, at 22:51, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:14:43 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On 11/05/09 11:17, Rob van der Heij wrote:
was a valid test in the past (until 3COM got some arms bent for the
domain).
I was unaware of such arm-bending.
From RFC 1123:
(titled: Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support)
2.1 Host Names and Numbers
The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in
RFC-952
[DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal
syntax.
Thanks.
That was also when the maximum name length was increased to
accommodate
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.com.
???
Oh their web site, they boast, "Prior to October 1999 it was not
possible to register .com domain names longer than 26 characters
(including 4 for the .com suffix)".
http://
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.com/
Whereas RFC 882 (November, 1983) states, "There are also some
restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 characters or less."
In the domain name above, the longer label is a mere 58 characters,
so apparently for 16 years the implementation fell short of the
specification.
-- gil
