How about
; <<>> DiG 9.4.3b2 <<>> -t . @a.root-servers.net
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 49774
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 14
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not availab
I find a more direct approach is to just use the tools.ietf.org site
when looking up RFCs. It is is less authoritative, but pretty trustworthy.
For example, browing to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034 will show at
the page top all the RFCs which update RFC 1034. If the RFC was
obsoleted by ano
's you need to take care to see if what
the author really meant when they say "domain name". Often
they are confusing it with "heirachical hostname".
Mark
> Mike
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Pounsett [mailto:m...@conun
Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> On 25-Feb-2009, at 16:46, Mike Bernhardt wrote:
>
>> So what is the accepted view on this currently? Is there another RFC that
>> has made it OK now?
>
> I'm not going to say this definitively, because I'm not certain, but I
> think 952 may have been updated by a late
indeed the reference document to work from. Mighty
confusing!
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Pounsett [mailto:m...@conundrum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Evan Hunt
Cc: Mike Bernhardt; bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: single-character host names
>The
Ha ha, I forgot about the root servers. Thanks to a couple of you for the
clarification.
-Original Message-
From: Evan Hunt [mailto:evan_h...@isc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:15 PM
To: Mike Bernhardt
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: single-character host names
In message <6.2.5.6.2.20090225140635.02c02...@resistor.net>, SM writes:
> At 13:46 25-02-2009, Mike Bernhardt wrote:
> >I've been looking into the RFCs regarding whether or not single-character
> >(alpha) host names are allowed or not. RFC 952 says no, but 2181 says that
> >host names must between
At 13:46 25-02-2009, Mike Bernhardt wrote:
I've been looking into the RFCs regarding whether or not single-character
(alpha) host names are allowed or not. RFC 952 says no, but 2181 says that
host names must between 1 and 63 octets in length, which would appear to say
"yes."
Section 2.1 of RFC
On 25-Feb-2009, at 17:14, Evan Hunt wrote:
Actually, to be lawyerly about it, while RFC952 says you can't have
a single-character name, it also defines names as including periods
to delimit domain-name components. So, "m.google.com." is really a
13-character name, with a single-character compo
there are
several examples of infrastructure, including the root name servers
themselves, successfully using single-character host names.
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc
> Certainly, several large organizations (Google, Yahoo and CNN, to name 3)
> are using at least 1: "m"
Not to mention all the root-server operators. So the rule clearly
isn't being enforced very well. :)
Actually, to be lawyerly about it, while RFC952 says you can't have
a single-character name
I've been looking into the RFCs regarding whether or not single-character
(alpha) host names are allowed or not. RFC 952 says no, but 2181 says that
host names must between 1 and 63 octets in length, which would appear to say
"yes."
Certainly, several large organizations (Google, Yahoo and CNN, to
12 matches
Mail list logo
