[54476] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: COM/NET informational message
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bert hubert)
Fri Jan 3 14:26:21 2003
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 20:24:49 +0100
From: bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301031853520.19798-100000@www.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:15:43PM +0000, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Yes, comparisons are case-insensitive. So what? strcasecmp()
> works on ASCII strings. Now it must work on <new encoding x>.
> Why not let <new encoding x> be UTF-8, something programmers
> should support already? Maybe MS-style Unicode encoding? Why
> add yet another encoding?!
Even the current MS encoding does not work. Check out 130.161.180.1, which I
think runs VMS. It does not even pass >127 characters to the root-servers.
It is the nameserver for a /16.
dig www.abcț.com A @130.161.180.1 <- www.abc\xfe.com
> I fear I may be straying OT, for this is layers 6/7...
Hoping for all nameservers to magically break RFC compliance because you
think a 'properly coded nameserver' should behave is naive to say the least.
PowerDNS may well lowercase your query using functions not guaranteed to do
anything useful on >127 characters. Perhaps they are being helpful and
change capital-U-umlaut to lowercase-U-umlaut. Who knows.
Regards,
bert
--
http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software
http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO
http://netherlabs.nl Consulting
