>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
>>
>> The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
>> CHANGES:
>>
>> 935. [bug] inet_pton failed to reject leading zeros.
> well, maybe they were wrong? How does one get in contact with their
> bugs database these days? Is comp.protocols.dns.bind still a good
> place to discuss these things?
Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] And yes, I'd ask the question at some
BIND-specific list.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s. 1.002.3.4 is "illegal" according to RFC3986, Section 3.2.2
(although it's specified in the context of a URI), so "what is legal"
is probably a controversial issue.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
