jim at mpn.cp.philips.com
Mon Nov 15 09:58:30 UTC 1999
>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> writes:
Kevin> Ever hear of "squatter's rights"? Underscores have 'em.
No they don't. The format for a valid host name was given in RFC952
which was written in 1985. This became a compulsory requirement in
1989 in the Host Requirements RFC 1123. So you've had 10 years to fix
the illegal names assuming you didn't use best practice and follow
what RFC952 had to say 14 years ago.
Kevin> There's just no practical, real-world justification to go
Kevin> through the hassle and expense of eradicating them.
Yes there is. Firstly, host names with underscores are illegal. The
RFCs say so. How many other compulsory RFCs are you going to elect to
ignore? Secondly, your illegal host names may well break other
software that takes a much stricter line on the host names it
allows. ISTR that Apple systems have TCP/IP code that chokes on host
names which contain underscores. Has the whole world to fix their
(correct) code to accommodate people like you who don't comply with
the mandatory standards?
Kevin> Whatever happened to "be liberal in what you accept"
Kevin> anyway? Is RFC 1123's Robustness Principle dead and buried?
Whatever happened to adhering to the things which MUST and MUST NOT be
done in that RFC? (In that RFC's definitions of MUST and MUST NOT.)
More information about the bind-users