> On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:50, Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi -
> 
>> From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Aug 17, 2015 6:12 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [netmod] domain-name
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> it seems the typedef "domain-name" in the "ietf-inet-types" (RFC 6991)
>> is too restrictive: characters in domain names are not limited to
>> [a-zA-Z0-9_]. RFC 2181 says:
> 
> Well, it's obviously missing "-", which is a perfectly fine
> character for a domain name.

That’s my copy-and-paste mistake, sorry, the pattern in “domain-name” does 
permit hyphens. 

> 
>>  The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels
>>  that can be used to identify resource records.  That one restriction
>>  relates to the length of the label and the full name.  The length of
>>  any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets.  A full domain
>>  name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators).  The zero
>>  length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree,
>>  and is typically written and displayed as ".".  Those restrictions
>>  aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any
>>  resource record.  Similarly, any binary string can serve as the value
>>  of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of its value
>>  (SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added).
>>  Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions
>>  on the labels that can be used.  In particular, DNS servers must not
>>  refuse to serve a zone because it contains labels that might not be
>>  acceptable to some DNS client programs.  A DNS server may be
>>  configurable to issue warnings when loading, or even to refuse to
>>  load, a primary zone containing labels that might be considered
>>  questionable, however this should not happen by default.
> 
> This was the basis of the old "just use UTF-8" argument for IDN.
> Among other things, it runs afoul of the more restrictive rules
> for hostnames (distinct from domain names).

Yes, RFCs 1034 and 1035 strongly recommend adhering to stricter hostname rules 
but it is no MUST for domain names, and exceptions do exist. 

> 
>> In particular, wildcard domain names (RFC 4592) are rejected by the
>> "domain-name" pattern.
> 
> Not good.

Also, CIDR-style reverse zones contain labels like 128/26 that are rejected by 
the “domain-name” pattern, too.

Lada

> 
> Randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C




_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to