On Sunday 21 January 2007 03:28, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > >>>>> 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.
Section 7.4 is rather clear about the scope of the definition of "dotted notation" in 3.2.2. - i.e. it is limited to URIs. inet_aton gethostbyname etc. are explicitly allowed to accept platform dependent representations. -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
pgpB1pePgpAiy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
