> On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:49 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
> But it's good to see a clear statement from 1987 about desirability of
> supporting alternate protocols (although they use CLASS for that). Maybe
> onion should have used a new CLASS :)
>
See draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless (which
resolvers.
> >
> > Adrien
> >
> > -- Original Message ------
> > From: "Ted Lemon"
> > To: "Adrien de Croy"
> > Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
> > Sent: 8/04/2016 2:24:33 p.m.
> > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs do
library one that is used purely to resolve addresses (e.g.
A and records)?
Adrien
-- Original Message --
From: "Ted Lemon"
To: "Adrien de Croy"
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
Sent: 8/04/2016 2:35:40 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/10
IDN is because there isn't a character set for the non-ascii domain names
and because some hostname lookup libraries validate their inputs.
rfc952 as modified by rfc1123 define hostnames. hostnames are a subset
of domain names. Both fold the case of ascii letters.
The DNS is supposed to be cas
e DNS resolvers.
>>
>> Adrien
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Ted Lemon"
>> To: "Adrien de Croy"
>> Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
>> Sent: 8/04/2016 2:24:33 p.m.
>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain
ience!
-- Original Message --
From: "Ted Lemon"
To: "Adrien de Croy"
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
Sent: 8/04/2016 2:31:13 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs
RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc
The document I mentioned updates RFC 1034. T
Looks like 1034/1035 should be obsoleted.
>
> Thankfully not many people nowadays need to write DNS resolvers.
>
> Adrien
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Ted Lemon"
> To: "Adrien de Croy"
> Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
> Sent: 8/
Lemon"
To: "Adrien de Croy"
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
Sent: 8/04/2016 2:24:33 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs
RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc
Have you read the rest of the documents? E.g.,:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2181#section-11
On T
Have you read the rest of the documents? E.g.,:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2181#section-11
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Ted Lemon"
>
>
> ::= | " "
>>
>> ::= | "."
>>
>> ::= [ [ ] ]
>>
>> ::= |
>>
>> ::
-- Original Message --
From: "Ted Lemon"
::= | " " ::= |
"." ::= [ [ ] ]
::= |::=
| "-" ::= | ::= any one
of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a
through z in lower case ::= any one of the ten digits 0
through 9
if this was a BNF prod
-- Original Message --
From: "Ted Lemon"
To: "Adrien de Croy"
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
Sent: 8/04/2016 2:03:17 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs
RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc
No, you're confusing hostnames and do
No, you're confusing hostnames and domain names. Read Ed Lewis' draft,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-domain-names-02
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I guess you're all aware of the issue of what constitutes a valid domain
> name, what characters ar
Hi all
I guess you're all aware of the issue of what constitutes a valid domain
name, what characters are valid in labels etc. So forgive me for what
must be me re-raising an ancient maybe long-thought-put-to-rest issue...
but there's a serious problem out there.
RFC1034 secion 3.5 which is
13 matches
Mail list logo
