Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: |Which standard? RFC 1035 2.3.1 defines hostnames.
|ps: do go read section 11 of rfc2181 while you're pondering all of this. I think RFC 6895 would then be for the better: 3.3.1. Label Types At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only printing ASCII characters [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII uppercase and lowercase letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary Label type is Historic [RFC6891]. Thank you. --steffen |ps: do go read section 11 of rfc2181 while you're pondering all of this. For my own taste all those other RFCs from all those honorable people are not outweighed by a single sentence of an RFC that otherwise pushes forward that completely refusable DNSSEC system that i personally did not implement consciously back in 2004+. And even a thousand more IETF announcements which read something like "DNSSEC now enters widespread usage [and here is another one which aids in supporting another part of the game]" won't change that. Instead i'm personally thrilled by draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis, and then on top of TLS and a library which gets used a billion times a time. But anyway the second half of that sentence.
