Whenever I see a "errata exist" I click through.... anyway.
I guess if we consider that the BNF production in RFC1034/1035 is for
hostname not domain name we run into the next problem which is that if
we ever have a domain name that doesn't also comply with the rules for
hostname, we can't include any hostname records in it, since the
production for <label> is reused for all the labels in the name down to
the root.
That kinda puts a damper on it.
But it's good to see a clear statement from 1987 about desirability of
supporting alternate protocols (although they use CLASS for that).
Maybe onion should have used a new CLASS :)
I'm also struggling to see where the restriction on using ASCII is
coming from, especially since 2818 s. 11 states binary, not ASCII, and
so IDN shouldn't need to exist except for coding hostnames.
Is a hostname library one that is used purely to resolve addresses (e.g.
A and AAAA records)?
Adrien
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Sent: 8/04/2016 2:35:40 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs
RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc
No worries. FYI, errata don't actually update documents, so they're
not the right solution. The thing about 1034/1035 is that they are
very readable, and a good place to start. Think of it as being like
Talmudic commentary (or TIbetan Buddhist, for that matter)--you just
have to read all the layers to get the full story.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Adrien de Croy <adr...@qbik.com>
wrote:
I've seen a lot of RFCs marked as obsoleted.
When you see updated by about 20 more RFCs, and you start to click
through them, and see mostly they relate to DNSSEC etc, it can be a
bit of an impediment.
maybe an errata would be more visible for this kind of issue.
thanks for your patience!
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Sent: 8/04/2016 2:31:13 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs
RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc
The document I mentioned updates RFC 1034. That's how we do things
in the IETF!
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Adrien de Croy <adr...@qbik.com>
wrote:
yeah, paragraph 2 of that section is what I quoted as at odds with
1034/1035.
I've been reading this stuff all day....
Looks like 1034/1035 should be obsoleted.
Thankfully not many people nowadays need to write DNS resolvers.
Adrien
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Sent: 8/04/2016 2:24:33 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs
RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc
Have you read the rest of the documents? E.g.,:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2181#section-11
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Adrien de Croy <adr...@qbik.com>
wrote:
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com>
<domain> ::= <subdomain> | " " <subdomain> ::= <label> |
<subdomain> "." <label> <label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ]
<let-dig> ] <ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp>
<ldh-str> <let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-" <let-dig> ::=
<letter> | <digit> <letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic
characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower
case <digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
if this was a BNF production only for hostnames, why call it
<domain>, <label> etc.
There's no other BNF for domain name in the spec.
Adrien
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
