RFC 1035 isn't the only RFC under this aspect. While in RFC 1035
the host specification is a "should", in other RFC's it's a "must"
They are:
RFC 1123 Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support
which has a pointer to
RFC 952DOD INTERNET HOST TABLE SPECIFICATION
So, undersco
RFC 1035 isn't the only RFC under this aspect. While in RFC 1035
the host specification is a "should", in other RFC's it's a "must"
They are:
RFC 1123 Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support
which has a pointer to
RFC 952DOD INTERNET HOST TABLE SPECIFICATION
So, undersc
Doug wrote:
>
>Nothing in either RFC that you quoted, or any of your examples
>contradicted my actual point, which was that PTR records are not
>valid outside of in-addr.arpa name space.
AFAICT the second example I gave has a valid PTR record outside
in-addr.arpa. To give you a more concrete exam
Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Nothing in either RFC that you quoted, or any of your examples
>contradicted my actual point, which was that PTR records are not
>valid outside of in-addr.arpa name space.
AFAICT the second example I gave has a valid PTR record outside
in-addr.arpa. To give you
Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> >Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >>[lost attribution]
> >>>
> >>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
> >>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
> >>
> >> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
> >> outsize of the IN-ADD
Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >>[lost attribution]
> >>>
> >>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
> >>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
> >>
> >> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
> >> o
Doug wrote:
>Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>>[lost attribution]
>>>
>>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
>>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
>>
>> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
>> outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of the DNS namespace?
Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>>[lost attribution]
>>>
>>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
>>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
>>
>> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
>> outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of
In message <199908122308.taa88...@whizzo.transsys.com> "Louis A. Mamakos"
writes:
: The DNS can store names where the values used for each octet of a
: label in a DNS name can have any value at all between 0 and 255,
: including " ", ".", and other rude things. The general purpose
: mechansim can
In message <25455.934497...@localhost> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
: > So Solaris does the right thing by understanding underscore I guess.
: > Since it is not forbidden to use it in hostnames.
:
: It does not do the right thing and it is indeed forbidden. :)
Also, all modern versions of bind spe
In message <19990817.saa87...@whizzo.transsys.com> "Louis A. Mamakos"
writes:
: It violates the "starts with alpha" "requirement" in 952 and 1101
: that you quotes, yet we use these things all the time.
That requirement has been relaxed. See RFC 1123.
Bottom line is that _ is an illegal c
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Louis A. Mamakos" writes:
: The DNS can store names where the values used for each octet of a
: label in a DNS name can have any value at all between 0 and 255,
: including " ", ".", and other rude things. The general purpose
: mechansim can be (ab)sed for all sort
In message <25455.934497542@localhost> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
: > So Solaris does the right thing by understanding underscore I guess.
: > Since it is not forbidden to use it in hostnames.
:
: It does not do the right thing and it is indeed forbidden. :)
Also, all modern versions of bind sp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Louis A. Mamakos" writes:
: It violates the "starts with alpha" "requirement" in 952 and 1101
: that you quotes, yet we use these things all the time.
That requirement has been relaxed. See RFC 1123.
Bottom line is that _ is an illegal character in a hostname,
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >
> > That IS a violation of the standard, since A records
> > are not valid for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
> >
>
> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
> outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of the DNS namespace?
>
> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records
> are not valid for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
>
And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of the DNS namespace?
What people really miss is that the DNS is a distributed databas
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >
> > That IS a violation of the standard, since A records
> > are not valid for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
> >
>
> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
> outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of the DNS namespace?
> How do I reconcile it? Well I must admit that I have not seen that one
> before. However just because there is a domain out there that is incorrect
> and will resolve does not mean that we should allow others. The way I
> reconcile this is that we need a patch for the resolver and I will be sure
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> But the DNS is used to hold all sorts of information. For example, how do
> you reconcile domain names like:
>
> 42.10.202.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA
>
> in the DNS? It violates the "starts with alpha" "requirement" in 952 and 1101
E.. ev
Today Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > RFC 952
> >
> >1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up
> >to 24 characters drawn from the alphabet (A-Z), digits (0-9), minus
> >sign (-), and period (.). Note that periods are only allowed when
> >they serve to delim
> But the DNS is used to hold all sorts of information. For example, how do
> you reconcile domain names like:
>
> 42.10.202.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA
>
> in the DNS? It violates the "starts with alpha" "requirement" in 952 and 1101
> that you quotes, yet we use these things all the time. In fact
> So Solaris does the right thing by understanding underscore I guess.
> Since it is not forbidden to use it in hostnames.
It does not do the right thing and it is indeed forbidden. :)
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> Well, I am the person who has this problem.
> The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
> character
> as far as I understood.
This is a common misunderstanding. The only valid characters in
hostnames to be used on the
> > Well, I am the person who has this problem.
> > The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
> > character
> > as far as I understood. But it suggests which characters we should use.
> >
> RFC 952
>
>1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string u
> So Solaris does the right thing by understanding underscore I guess.
> Since it is not forbidden to use it in hostnames.
It does not do the right thing and it is indeed forbidden. :)
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the
> Well, I am the person who has this problem.
> The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
> character
> as far as I understood. But it suggests which characters we should use.
>
RFC 952
1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up
to 24 chara
>
> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records
> are not valid for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
>
And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of the DNS namespace?
What people really miss is that the DNS is a distributed databa
> How do I reconcile it? Well I must admit that I have not seen that one
> before. However just because there is a domain out there that is incorrect
> and will resolve does not mean that we should allow others. The way I
> reconcile this is that we need a patch for the resolver and I will be sure
Well, I am the person who has this problem.
The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
character
as far as I understood. But it suggests which characters we should use.
Also in RFC1033 it says (well the status of this one is UNKNOWN though)
-
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> But the DNS is used to hold all sorts of information. For example, how do
> you reconcile domain names like:
>
> 42.10.202.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA
>
> in the DNS? It violates the "starts with alpha" "requirement" in 952 and 1101
E.. e
Today Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > RFC 952
> >
> >1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up
> >to 24 characters drawn from the alphabet (A-Z), digits (0-9), minus
> >sign (-), and period (.). Note that periods are only allowed when
> >they serve to deli
> But the DNS is used to hold all sorts of information. For example, how do
> you reconcile domain names like:
>
> 42.10.202.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA
>
> in the DNS? It violates the "starts with alpha" "requirement" in 952 and 1101
> that you quotes, yet we use these things all the time. In fac
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> Well, I am the person who has this problem.
> The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
> character
> as far as I understood.
This is a common misunderstanding. The only valid characters in
hostnames to be used on the
> > Well, I am the person who has this problem.
> > The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
> > character
> > as far as I understood. But it suggests which characters we should use.
> >
> RFC 952
>
>1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string
> Well, I am the person who has this problem.
> The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
> character
> as far as I understood. But it suggests which characters we should use.
>
RFC 952
1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up
to 24 char
Well, I am the person who has this problem.
The RFCs does not explicitly say that we should not use underscore
character
as far as I understood. But it suggests which characters we should use.
Also in RFC1033 it says (well the status of this one is UNKNOWN though)
36 matches
Mail list logo
