Hi Bruno,
Bruno Haible writes:
>> Does anyone know why
>> RFC 2553 has the larger buffer size? I thought per RFC 1034 domain names
>> were limited to 253 bytes, with the trailing dot removed and empty root
>> label removed [3].
>
> I think [1] explains it:
> "The first value is actually define
Hi Collin,
> #define NI_MAXHOST 1025
> #define NI_MAXSERV32
>
> That is what glibc does too. I've applied the attached patches to make
> sure these are defined correctly.
Thanks. After reading [1] and [2], I agree that's the right thing to do.
> Does anyone know why
> RFC 2553 has
r.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1034
>From a6dfa6add8326e7e946c5eb69e8c0b2d41f9331e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Collin Funk
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:50:16 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] netdb: Define NI_MAXHOST and NI_MAXSERV.
* doc/posix-headers/netdb.texi (netdb.h): Document definitions that
differ from RFC 2553.
* l
