----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Andrews" <ma...@isc.org>
> > > No. See RFC 952 > > > > I think 952 is functionally obsolete, requireing a <24 char name > > length; > > I would have expected citations, perhaps, to 1535. > > > > Care to expand? > > Ok. RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123. This covers all legal hostnames > in use today including those that do not fit in the DNS. The DNS > supports hostnames up to 253 bytes (255 bytes in wire encoding). > RFC 1123 allow hostnames to go to 255 bytes. I'm deliberately > ignoring IDN's as they still need to map back into what is permitted > by RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123. And except on length and first-digit-allowed, 1123 punts naming to 952 (which doesn't really say) and in 6.1, to 1034 and 1035. So I know what my light night reading will be (unless Albitz, Liu, Mockapetris, or any of the BIND team are around on the list :-) > RFC 1535 is NOT a STANDARD. Not all RFC are created equal. Typo. 1035 (as updated by whatever is on-point, if anything). And Mark: could you please trim your quoting a bit? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
