- Original Message -
> From: "Jimmy Hess"
> RFC103 5.1 is correct in the context of a DNS zonefile.
> In other contexts, however, a domain is absolute without a trailing
> dot.
If that can be nailed down authoritatively, then it will answer my
followup questions, and at least locate the
On 2/22/13, Jay Ashworth wrote:
RFC103 5.1 is correct in the context of a DNS zonefile.
In other contexts, however, a domain is absolute without a trailing dot.
One example, would be in the case of the SMTP protocol, where
hostnames are required to _always_ be absolute.
In various common con
- Original Message -
> From: "Cutler James R"
> A domain name without a terminal dot is a relative domain name.
> -- An application requesting name to address translation gets to
> decide if a search list is to be used, including the default of dot.
>
> A domain name with a terminal dot
A domain name without a terminal dot is a relative domain name.
-- An application requesting name to address translation gets to decide if a
search list is to be used, including the default of dot.
A domain name with a terminal dot is a Fully Qualified Domain Name.
-- An application requesti
On 2/21/13, Mark Andrews wrote:
> RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a hostname.
> There is no trailing period.
A hostname is not a domain name, the hostname is just a label, and
has stricter syntax than is allowed in a DNS label; however: When
hostnames are represente
http://domainincite.com/page/5?s=right+of+the+dot
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1
Yrs, but he wanted the retronym for domain names not containing one, not the
dot.
Absolute and relative domain names, as Joe and 1035 said.
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:19:03PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
>> It's a convention common enough and useful enough that I can see why
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 06:12:41PM -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
> The spec for a URL also calls out what constitutes a hostname, and
> I've yet to see a HTTP client that trips over a rooted domain name.
Well, RFC 3986 (URI) explicitly allows the final dot. See the section
on reg-name in section 3
Well, the followup question is: are absolute host names "real", or /solely/
hint to the local resolver not to search-list?
I will reread 1035 later tonight ...
Brian Reichert wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> So, should browsers send absolute host names i
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:30:57PM -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> This is clarified in RFC 3280:
>
>When the subjectAltName extension contains a domain name system
>label, the domain name MUST be stored in the dNSName (an IA5String).
>The name MUST be in the "preferred name syntax,"
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So, should browsers send absolute host names in http/1.1 requests, and
> shouldn't servers strip the trailing dot if they get one?
>
> I vote No and Yes, resp.
The first question is tough, only because of the depth of the
exatblishe
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:19:03PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> It's a convention common enough and useful enough that I can see why
> people would want a handy term for it.
How about "stopdot"? Seems to cover the function and the form.
---rsk
So, should browsers send absolute host names in http/1.1 requests, and
shouldn't servers strip the trailing dot if they get one?
I vote No and Yes, resp.
Brian Reichert wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:21:02PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> In short, "yes, Jay, I do". Got it. :-)
>
>:)
>
>>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:21:02PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> In short, "yes, Jay, I do". Got it. :-)
:)
> You saw Joe's second reply?
Apparently, I lost track of that while writing this up. :)
--
Brian Reichert
BSD admin/developer at large
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:10:02PM -0800, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> just keep in mind that while "." ought to be a label separator, the
> utc's bidi algorithm allows the directionality of a label to "leak"
> across the "period" character, where it is not a terminal character.
Yes, this is tr
In short, "yes, Jay, I do". Got it. :-)
You saw Joe's second reply?
Brian Reichert wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41:33PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> My snap reaction is to say that nothing should ever be *trying* to
>> compare a rooted F.Q.D.N. against a certificate; it is, as has been
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41:33PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> My snap reaction is to say that nothing should ever be *trying* to
> compare a rooted F.Q.D.N. against a certificate; it is, as has been
> noted, merely command line/entry field shorthand to tell the local
> resolver where to quit; app
On 2/22/13 11:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
> presentation format as representing the separators in the wire
> format. In the wire format, of course, these separators are octets
> that indicate the size of the next label. And sinc
BGP Update Report
Interval: 11-Feb-13 -to- 18-Feb-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS9498 111602 4.7% 107.9 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.
2 - AS24560 91379 3.8%
This report has been generated at Tue Feb 19 16:13:14 2013 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:39:21PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> but since the dot is a separator (I believe by definition), if it exists
> at the end, it has to be separating *something*.
>
Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
presentation format as representing the se
On 2013-02-22, at 14:39, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> In fact, Joe, I think it's distinguishing your second case from "a label
>>> string which is intended to reference a rooted FQDN, but the user did not
>>> specify the trailing dot -- and yet still does not want a search path
>>> applied"...
>>
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Joe Abley"
> > In fact, Joe, I think it's distinguishing your second case from "a label
> > string which is intended to reference a rooted FQDN, but the user did not
> > specify the trailing dot -- and yet still does not want a search path
> > applied"...
>
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap
Jay,
On 2013-02-22, at 14:20, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> Actually, I think the problem is the confusion between a label string
>> terminated in a dot (to indicate that no search domain should be
>> appended) and a label string not so-terminated (which might mean that
>> a search domain is attempted,
- Original Message -
> From: "Joe Abley"
> Actually, I think the problem is the confusion between a label string
> terminated in a dot (to indicate that no search domain should be
> appended) and a label string not so-terminated (which might mean that
> a search domain is attempted, depen
On 2013-02-22, at 14:01, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:57:42PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a hostname.
>> There is no trailing period.
>
> Mark is of course correct about this, but it doesn't fully help.
>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:57:42PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a hostname.
> There is no trailing period.
Mark is of course correct about this, but it doesn't fully help.
The basic problem is (as always) the confusion about the diff
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Reichert"
> The core issue I'm trying to resolve surrounds the generation of a
> CSR. We're trying automate this process for a network appliance
> my employer sells.
>
> When our appliance generates a CSR for itself, among the steps is
> to get a PTR r
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:19:03PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> It's a convention common enough and useful enough that I can see why
> people would want a handy term for it.
The core issue I'm trying to resolve surrounds the generation of a
CSR. We're trying automate this process for a network appli
Dear Sir or Madam,
(We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message)
Recent Advances in Message Passing Interface. 20th European MPI Users' Group
Meeting (EuroMPI 2013)
EuroMPI 2013 is being held in cooperation with SIGHPC
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Andrews"
> RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a
> hostname. There is no trailing period.
May someone create a "com" subdomain in a DNS domain you have to work in,
Mark.
Or *course* the trailing dot matters, even if only due to
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat
And since it's Wacky Friday somewhere:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/02/how-anonymous-accidentally-helped-expose-two-chinese-hackers/
On 21 February 2013 21:58, Jack Bates wrote:
...
>
> The A-team doesn't get caught and detailed. The purpose of the other teams
> is to detect easy targets, handle easy jobs, and create lots of noise for
> the A-team to hide in. Hacking has always had a lot in common with magic.
> Misdirection is
Ah, you said rib. Did look at the code a bit more.
It looks like there is a "dump routes" command. Might
try that.
Here it says "birdc" can do some stuff...
http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-4.html
dump resources|sockets|interfaces|neighbors|attributes|routes|protocols
and
show route [
Uh,
I'm looking at this in the source below in sysdep/unix/log.c
and it looks like it is there. I assume you want "mrtdump protocols
messages"
The manual for Global options it says this:
mrtdump "filename"
Set MRTdump file name. This option must be specified to allow MRTdump
feature. Default: n
36 matches
Mail list logo
