On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:13:07AM -0500, Chip Norkus wrote:
> On Wed Jan 30, 2002; 06:32PM +0100 Stian Sletner propagated the following:
> > May I just point out that having hostnames with no "." violates no
> > relevant RFCs.
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure FQDNs are required to have at least two sections (except
> for localhost, which is banned from use on most networks). I could spend
> some time digging through relevant RFCs to find out, but I'd be surprised
> if this wasn't the case.
rfc1459 says: see RFC 952 [DNS:4] for details on allowed hostnames
>From RFC952: DoD Internet host table specification.
<official hostname> ::= <hname>
<hname> ::= <name>*["."<name>]
<name> ::= <let>[*[<let-or-digit-or-hyphen>]<let-or-digit>]
RFC1123 (STD 3): Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support says:
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.
Then there is RFC1034/1035 (STD13): Domain names:
<domain> ::= <subdomain> | " "
<subdomain> ::= <label> | <subdomain> "." <label>
<label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]
Note that this does allow "domainnames" to not have a dot in
them. It doesn't say anything about a hostname.
Anyway, the argument about it was does that * mean 0-infinity or
1-infinity. I think it means the first, which would allow
hostnames without a dot in them.
Kurt
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://epicsol.org/mailman/listinfo/list
