Bind 8 special characters

[Kevin Darcy]

Mark.Andrews at nominum.com wrote:

> > Mark.Andrews at iengines.com wrote:
> >
> > >         Underscore was NEVER a valid character for a hostname.
> > >         See RFC 952 and its predecessors.  If you connect to the
> > >         Internet you play by its rules.
> >
> > Just as a historical note, while RFC 952 is not officially obsolete, its purp
> > ose
> > was to specify the format of the HOSTS.TXT file, which is, in fact, obsolete.
> > Later RFC's, of course, incorporate by reference the restrictions of RFC 952,
> > disembodied from the HOSTS.TXT context in which they were originally conceive
> > d.
> > Query: was HOSTS.TXT file inclusion ever enforced as a prerequisite for Inter
> > net
> > connectivity?
>
>         RFC 952 was written with the DNS in mind, early versions
>         existed when RFC 952 was written.  RFC 952 is NOT obsolete,
>         it is very much the current definintion of what is allowed
>         in a hostname with one modification from RFC 1123.

I didn't say RFC 952 was obsolete; I said that the thing (HOSTS.TXT) the format
for which RFC 952 defines, is obsolete. That's two levels of indirection away from
being obsolete. And as for the difference between 1123 "promoting" 952 to the
status of a DNS standard versus simply borrowing a bunch of restrictions from 952
to create a separate DNS standard, that's just a matter of interpretation.

>         Yes the restrictions were enforced.  3com had a big battle
>         even getting the changes in RFC 1123 endorsed.

That's an answer, but not really to the question I asked. Did hosts have to
included in HOSTS.TXT in order to connect to the Internet? I'm trying to figure
out what you meant by "If you connect to the Internet you play by its rules". If
machines could connect to the Internet without being in HOSTS.TXT, then it appears
your statement is incorrect, at least insofar as "the rules" consisted of RFC 952,
the only RFC you cited.

Then again, maybe we could just clear all of this confusion by citing 1123 as the
standard and forgetting about 952 altogether, except to the extent it is
incorporated-by-reference into 1123. There's too much historical baggage
associated with 952, in my personal opinion.


- Kevin