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 the DNS namespace?
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
outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA
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 a
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,
Doug d...@gorean.org 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?
Tony Finch wrote:
Doug d...@gorean.org 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
Doug d...@gorean.org 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
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, underscores
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)
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
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
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
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, you
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 delimit
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.. even
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
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 database
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,
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
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)
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 characters
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
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
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 the
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, you can
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 delimit components
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.. even if
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
to
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 database
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?
Given
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
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
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 be
33 matches
Mail list logo
