-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Eric A. Hall" wrote: > Until the 2-char rule inherited from 952 by 1035 is overthrown (which I > wish somebody would state one way or the other), it is implicitly upheld.
What 2-character rule? There is nothing in either the 952, 1035, or 1123 syntaxes to prohibit single-character labels. Extend ABNF with an operator \, so that a string matches A \ B iff it matches A but not B. Then the syntax implied by RFC 1123, ignoring the 255-character limit on hostnames, is: RFC1123HostName = *(HostLabel ".") TopLevelHostLabel HostLabel = (LETTER / DIGIT) [61*(LETTER / DIGIT / "-") (LETTER / DIGIT)] TopLevelHostLabel = HostLabel \ *DIGIT Does anyone disagree? - -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBO/rAqTkCAxeYt5gVAQH8Ygf+MzEFbxtzkNfJTY7XwEmFeH2XjlcVpM07 MOr57yYJh/neiIKNow5nTz1z5PKHbBaCBGimB8kuEzbiKUZDcZhNbrsewwXeucGa UfMpBvr/vbp0nh9SmCaIs63ETKkiJTsBV/79VdAPQLs0CF32YE/eiqI+1W0I7lQj YPdtPdzM+mEHW3Vp0sGevlBnI8X6bZ+2hT2O0ObF9FsdO7GcPLBY/VdFgUSrjhgk VMpEZfvzdKkTslwvEGU4ofu0dawPP3I/sD7mhl562wrD+cyiPwYvFZBoDcqbTSbD 5x4XE9JOC3Xl6wJRwQ3mL8AyJqBvqL182K7vzrHy5+Ey3U48o2uu8w== =kXuf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
