[161111] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Should host/domain names travel over the internet with a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Mon Feb 25 18:39:04 2013
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:36:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130225232538.3213C300C787@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
> > > No. See RFC 952
> >
> > I think 952 is functionally obsolete, requireing a <24 char name
> > length;
> > I would have expected citations, perhaps, to 1535.
> >
> > Care to expand?
>
> Ok. RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123. This covers all legal hostnames
> in use today including those that do not fit in the DNS. The DNS
> supports hostnames up to 253 bytes (255 bytes in wire encoding).
> RFC 1123 allow hostnames to go to 255 bytes. I'm deliberately
> ignoring IDN's as they still need to map back into what is permitted
> by RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123.
And except on length and first-digit-allowed, 1123 punts naming to 952
(which doesn't really say) and in 6.1, to 1034 and 1035. So I know what
my light night reading will be (unless Albitz, Liu, Mockapetris, or any
of the BIND team are around on the list :-)
> RFC 1535 is NOT a STANDARD. Not all RFC are created equal.
Typo. 1035 (as updated by whatever is on-point, if anything).
And Mark: could you please trim your quoting a bit?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
